My fellow Councillor from the United Kingdom failed to provide the full quotation of that section of the UDoHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights); given how the United Kingdom's opposition seems to stem from a closed minded ideal set of what each section can do in a court of law, so allow me to alleviate some of your concerns, and then state mine for the record of the Council.
"Section XXI – Right to Working Conditions
I. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment,
in conditions that ensure the health and wellbeing of employees.
II. Everyone has the right not to face discrimination in the workplace on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, or religion.
This is not the EU telling everyone that they have the right to work in whatever country they choose, funnily enough given the UK's visa program its astonishing that no one has used this legal logic yet from countries who have more restricted visa allotted to get into the UK. Oh yes, is not astonishing because the clearly stated intent of the section is that this is a right to a working condition. Do I see the works guaranteed work at all used in the section? No, because the intent of section is that whoever wants to work can, but they are not guaranteed work. Any judge would see this, citing only one section helps to paint part of the picture, however having the whole picture really does convey a thousand words in my opinion. For someone who loves specifics, it does seem that their arguments convey a need for some specifics in the section to support them.
Unto the rest of your comments, I do not believe anyone will be viewed as xenophobic; what I believe is that they might be viewed as people who stand in the way of providing protections to people who are not just refugees, but visitors from across the globe. The way this currently stands, Aalen can literally torture someone for being of Asian descent just because the border and customs official did not like the way the tourist looked at them. Millions of people are without basic legal protections, for a region who tries to pride itself on furthering human rights, this is not an issue of reform of an ever evolution document that should be constantly checked as times evolve. No instead, this is an issue of blind politicians who refuse to accept that they need to provide basic rights to everyone, and will cherry pick any section they use to further their arguments.
I find the Court's verdict to be completely shell shocking, however it opens the door for this region to truly visit its regional conventions on war, human rights, and many other aspects of this region that were either before nonexistent, or half-baked. If the Cllr. from the United Kingdom wishes to promote road blocks by stating this must come in one big bloc of reform, then the Cllr. from the United Kingdom is promoting an agenda that will take years to take place. This amendment promotes an easy fix to a glaring issue, it does not guarantee working visas to refugees, it does not guarantee UK citizenship to anyone who wishes it....this guarantee basic protections that every person on this planet deserves.
Cllr. Firoux offers very thoughtful ideas that I believe will help bring this amendment to its truly stated goals far more easily. Though my question stems in the form that since both amendments are amending the same areas, it therefore can not supersede each other. It might be easier to lump the two into one major amendment if there is enough support for it.
In short, while this amendment may be spurred by the recent Refugee related events in our Union, its effects go beyond refugees; they go beyond to protect everyone in the European Union, not just citizens."
-Speaker John Oliver