Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-112"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021023.2.3-112"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-23-Speech-3-1132
lpv:speaker	lp:Ilda Figueiredo2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2002-03-06--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partido Comunista Português (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and the Gulf (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; PECH (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". We disagree with the report due to its disproportionate ambition for an extremely poor document in the field of protecting fundamental rights. Examples of this are: the desire to include the binding incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties as one of the constitutional provisions of a future ‘European constitution’; the ambition to create a legal instrument that would attempt to subordinate the national constitutions of the Member States as far as possible, however much it protests to the contrary (note its aim of increasing Community competences in various areas). Upholding the content of the report will only make it more difficult to protect the binding incorporation of this Charter into a future ‘constitution’. This content is characterised by a drafting of rights that represent, in practice, a step backwards in comparison with what has been achieved in national constitutions, such as that of Portugal, for example or in comparison with what has been achieved in European conventions to which EU Member States are signatories. Lastly, we should also disagree with its defence of the future methodology for amending the content of the Charter, enshrining, in practice, the existence of a permanent ‘convention’ (or of the proclaimed new institution – the ‘congress’) or of other mechanisms for amending supposedly ‘constitutional’ content, once again going beyond the current exclusive competence of the States (governments and parliaments) with regard to amending the Treaties."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph