Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-096"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20001114.4.2-096"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". I consider that the Charter of Fundamental Rights represents a valuable step forward. I nonetheless abstained from the final vote, because I feel that some social rights are expressed less clearly than the economic rights. Both the ‘right to work’ and the ‘right to strike’ are handled only indirectly. Europeans do have the ‘right to work’ (it would have been surprising if they did not); they have the right to take “collective action” to defend their social interests, “including strike action”. Why not acknowledge the ‘right to strike’ directly? Furthermore, I would have preferred a Charter that did not merely stipulate the ‘rights’ of citizens but also their ‘duties’ towards society. Article 17 very reticently states that “the use of property may be regulated” in the general interest. There is, however, no mention of social obligations relating to the right to property. The Charter lists the fundamental freedoms to which my fellow citizens are entitled, but there is no mention of a requirement upon anyone to respect the rights of others. A society which recognises only rights and not duties becomes selfish."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph