Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-28-Speech-3-045"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-11-28"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Approval by the European Parliament of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071128.14.3-045"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-11-28-Speech-3-0462
lpv:speaker	lp:Francis Wurtz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Presidents (2006-12-13--2009-07-13)3 substitute; BUDG (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 chair; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Parti communiste français (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2007-05-23--2009-07-13)3 member; AFET (2007-01-31--2007-12-11)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, during our next sitting we will again approve the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Before we do this, let me ask a question which is perhaps not as simple as it appears. Will this be the initial Charter proclaimed in the year 2000 or, as the Leinen report suggests, will it be the adapted rehash integrated within the former draft Constitutional Treaty? The two texts are not, of course, identical and I feel it is unfortunate that their differences are not clearly set out, although that would have raised some legitimate controversy. For example, the French human rights commission expressed, and I quote, its grave concern about the amendments made to the articles on social rights – I am still quoting – that threaten to remove the social content of the Charter. One of the main authors of the original Charter, the lawyer Guy Braibant, explained in the press – and I quote – that the conditions for applying the text have changed. First of all, the word ‘may’ is occasionally replaced by ‘must’. Moreover – and I am still quoting – there is an official reference to ‘explanations’ by the Presidium. Although they ought to be pedagogical and completely neutral, the explanations interpret laws in a rather minimal sense. Fundamental rights have been undermined, unquote. Which text will we be approving in the next sitting? I also have a subsidiary question: will this approval be valid in all EU countries? This kind of action cannot entertain any ambiguity. Thus I would appreciate a precise reply to these two questions."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph