Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.2.3-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Given the way in which the Charter seems to have been able to set its own terms of reference and its own limitations (or more accurately lack of limitations), it is necessary that fundamental questions be answered before it is allowed to develop further.
Whilst it is right and proper that a legislative body such as the European Union should be bound by minimum standards of what is acceptable in civilised society, nothing will be gained if the implementation of the Charter continues to develop along the lines set out in this report.
What is to happen if the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights develop contradictory case law? Which will take precedence? Who will gain from potential forum-hopping other than litigation lawyers?
How can a legally-binding document claim that all rights are equal – whether it is the right to life or the right to strike? Are not many of these issues really political in nature rather than fundamental legal rights?
Was not Commissioner Byrne right when he said that questions of education, health and housing provision – and their financial implications – are best left to elected politicians rather than judges?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples