Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-13-Speech-1-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030113.6.1-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The strange thing about the Swiebel report is that it contains a detailed account of the reasons why the Resolution that it is proposing should be rejected.
The rapporteur invokes the ‘decision taken last year by Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) to use the Charter as a guideline for the annual report on the human rights situation in the EU’, and adds that ‘Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (…) has given [this work] greater focus and direction’.
Now, if this is the case, we should stick to this particular guideline very closely, not going too far, exceeding the rights set out in the Charter; not allowing ourselves to be side-tracked into an endless course of nit-picking, taking the report away from its aim and from what it should confine itself to and seeking to make the resolution on which we are voting an instrument for abuse – something truly insane – for passing endless judgments on the Member States.
The European Parliament does not, in fact, have the power to do this, except in very specific situations; situations so serious that they could be seen as potentially having the punitive effects of Article 7 of the EU Treaty apply to them. Furthermore, we all know that it is the Charter itself that sets out its own scope: ‘The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for
the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law (Article 51).
Consequently, both the report and the resolution should directly consider the institutions and bodies of the Union; and, with the exception of the specific comment relating to Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty, should consider the Member States only indirectly, when they are implementing Union law and only in these circumstances.
We were therefore all quite astonished, when the rapporteur finally said that exactly the opposite was true: that, on the one hand, the ‘report deliberately addresses only the human rights situation in the EU’s current Member States’– which is exactly what it should not be doing, and on the other, that the report ‘does not include any detailed list or assessment of the actions of the Council, the Commission or Parliament’ – which is what it should be doing.
If we add to this flagrant methodological deviation the regrettable inconstancy with which many of the comments about these Member States are made without sufficient objective and appropriate grounds (as the rapporteur herself admits), we have a set of basic reasons why in accordance with its own premises, the Swiebel report must be rejected. In its place, the alternative resolution that I tabled should be adopted, setting things back on a proper footing and enabling this Parliament to fulfil the recommendations that we ourselves defined."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples