Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-18-Speech-2-426"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100518.32.2-426"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, in relation to the first point regarding the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I would like to join in congratulating the rapporteurs and also the Commission for the way in which it has very quickly put forward a draft mandate for negotiation. I would also like to welcome the speech by Mr Duff, who said quite clearly that the government that has been formed in the United Kingdom between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is absolutely in favour of the European Union signing the European Union Convention on Human Rights, and therefore of complying with the Treaty of Lisbon.
However, some of Mr Duff’s compatriots said exactly the opposite: representatives of the European Conservatives and Reformists and the representative of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group – who is not British – along with Mrs Sinclaire and subsequently Mrs Morvai, who said quite clearly, ‘Why does the European Union need to sign the European Convention on Human Rights if the Member States are already parties to it?’
What has happened is that the Member States have transferred some of their competences and powers to the European Union, so they are not exercised by the Member States but by the European Union. The European Union could therefore theoretically infringe the European Convention on Human Rights. This is the case unless it is considered that the European Union does not have any power or any competences whatsoever, but it does have powers and competences that have been transferred by the Member States. This means that it is not enough for the Member States to have signed the convention. The Union needs to sign it too in order to complete the protection of human rights throughout the whole of the European Union.
I do not understand how people such as the representatives of the two groups that I mentioned, who have demonstrated their obvious euroscepticism, are refusing supranational control over the European Union. It is absolutely contradictory for someone who wants the European Union to be controlled or considers that everything that the European Union does is bad or that wretched bureaucrats are doing everything badly to be refusing supranational control over the European Union. This is absolutely contradictory. There will be other reasons to do with human rights or to do with an international organisation that defends human rights being more legitimate, stronger and more solid. There may be other reasons, but not the ones being given.
I believe that the need to sign the convention is very clear, and I also believe that it needs to be done with the speed with which the Commission has already begun to act. As Mr Méndez de Vigo said, the Commission has acted quickly and the Council needs to do the same. I am sure that the mandate for starting negotiations will be adopted on 4 June at the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels, so he does not need to worry.
With regard to the issue of the International Criminal Court, I think that the review conference is a very important meeting. It is a very important meeting which the Presidency, on behalf of which I am speaking, is going to attend in order to clearly establish and reaffirm that the Member States have to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, and that they are going to work along those lines, naturally based on the principle of complementarity, which is a basic principle of operation of the Criminal Court.
I agree with one of the major objectives of this conference, which is to introduce the crime of aggression, and also with removing from the Rome Statute the possibility of delaying for seven years before handing over possible or alleged war criminals. I also agree with the issue being debated – a proposal put forward by Belgium – as to whether the use of certain weapons in conflicts can constitute a war crime in itself.
In any case, the Presidency will make a statement supporting the Criminal Court and will also give an evaluation of what the Criminal Court has meant. I also presume that many Members will be at the debates at the Kampala conference. I therefore believe that this is a very important conference, with great political, symbolic and legal significance; decisions will be taken that affect legal texts.
I am, of course, very grateful to Parliament for holding this debate today, which has enabled us to reaffirm our common values and also to recall that basically, when we talk about the International Criminal Court, we are talking about people who have suffered the atrocities that the Rome Statute seeks to prosecute, and that it is ultimately about fighting impunity and making it clear that in the 21st century, there is no room for impunity."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples