Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-12-Speech-4-022"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20061012.3.4-022"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, first of all, by way of introduction to my remarks, I would like to know whether Mr Pirker was speaking for his group or on his own behalf. Having heard what Mr Kirkhope had to say, I no longer know. The first speaker, Mr Pirker, was supposed to be giving the opinion of his group. After listening to him, I certainly wonder whether the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports its own rapporteur, Mrs Gál, or not. It is no longer very clear where we stand today. Yet in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, we seemed to be in agreement; at least that is what our votes indicate. I must admit that we are somewhat flummoxed by the position of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats today, which does not match up in any way at all with the debate we conducted in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. What purpose, then, is served by debates in committee? As far as our group is concerned, we have been consistent. I would like to thank Mrs Gál and Mrs Kósáné Kovács for their excellent proposals and for their efforts that have culminated in a universally acceptable compromise. We welcome this proposal from the Commission for a broadening of the mandate of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, making it into a European Union Agency on Fundamental Rights, because the European Union must show an example and guarantee better protection of the fundamental rights of its citizens. The prime responsibility of such an agency – and I am sorry to see that some of the previous speakers have now left – must be to protect fundamental rights in the Member States as a matter of priority. That would not prevent it from looking elsewhere, but its first priority must be the Member States – let us put our own house in order. Over the past few years, we have seen a rise in extremism in Europe, an increase in outpourings of poisonous invective. We must be vigilant in defending the rights of everyone, a vigilance that must even extend into the confines of our own Parliament. We must keep watch for racist and xenophobic attacks. The peace of our societies is at risk unless we can inculcate respect for our differences and acceptance of diversity. The agency will have to ensure that the relevant European legislation is effectively transposed into the national law of the Member States and that it is properly applied. It will guarantee that the legislation of every Member State accords with our European principles. We certainly have a very comprehensive body of anti-discrimination law, and we are all well aware that it has been very poorly transposed in the Member States. The agency would be able to raise problems and provide advice on the best ways of implementing this legislation. It would be competent to deal with all areas covered by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, even though it is true that the Charter is not yet actionable. Our Parliament was one of the initiators of the Charter – that is worth remembering – and the Charter should be placed at the heart of the European integration process. If the agency were to have no powers under the third pillar, it would offer little more than the present Observatory. We agree on that point. In fact, the activities of the police and judiciary are at the heart of efforts to protect fundamental rights. It is therefore essential that the agency should have powers in this domain; that is one of the priorities to which I believed that the whole of this Parliament subscribed. It is worth recalling that this proposal from the Commission is the result of repeated calls from the Council for the creation of such an agency. In December 2003, for example, the European Council suggested that the mandate of the Vienna Observatory be broadened, and that wish was enshrined in the Hague Programme. In short, we surely ought to know what we want. Accordingly, we are backing these reports in their entirety, and we call on the Council to take heed of the position on this matter that was formulated in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and is endorsed by a large majority of Parliament."@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