Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-014"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-09-07"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vabadus ja turvalisus⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050907.2.3-014"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-09-07-Speech-3-015⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Nigel Farage⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; PECH (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² unknown; UK Independence Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; Conference of Presidents (2004-07-20--2006-12-12)²² chair; IND/DEM (2004-12-06--2008-10-21)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, der er et veletableret princip i EU - fastsat af Jean Monnet selv - om den gunstige krise: Når noget går rigtigt galt, når nationale regeringer ikke ved, hvad de skal gøre, når offentligheden er bekymret, er løsningen naturligvis mere integration og central kontrol inden for EU. Jeg har fulgt denne debat siden de grusomme angreb i New York for fire år siden, og det er det, man i EU har forsøgt at gøre ved enhver lejlighed, og det er helt klart det, som hr. Clarke og det britiske formandskab har i sinde at gøre. Jeg forstår naturligvis argumentet om, at telekommunikationsoplysninger kan hjælpe os med at spore personer. Men hr. Clarke mener, at vi skal udveksle disse oplysninger på basis af et klart retsgrundlag inden for EU. Hvilket klart retsgrundlag er der inden for EU? Der er ingen regler i EU, EU gør, som EU ønsker. Det vil være en frygtelig misforståelse at stille denne form for oplysninger til rådighed for give denne organisation. Vi bør efter min opfattelse opnå fremskridt gennem samarbejde, men det er tilsyneladende ikke fremgangsmåden, og vi kan åbenbart heller ikke benytte Interpol. Vi kan ikke benytte os af normale udleveringsaftaler blandt medlemsstaterne! Vi skal benytte Europol. Vi skal indføre den fatalt mangelfulde europæiske arrestordre. På hvert trin ryger samarbejdet mellem medlemsstaterne til fordel for EU-kontrol. Jeg er målløs over Deres udtalelse, hr. Clarke, om, at det ikke udelukkende er en debat om principper. Jeg ville have troet, at vi netop på dette tidspunkt skulle tage et skridt tilbage og fundere over gode principper. Hvad angår Det Forenede Kongerige er det så værd at miste princippet om, at man er uskyldig, indtil man er erklæret skyldig? Er det værd at miste retten til retfærdig rettergang? Er det værd at miste retten til at blive fremstillet i retten, vores grundlæggende beskyttelse imod en politistat? Er det værd at miste alt dette i forbindelse med bekæmpelsen af terrorisme og skubbe endnu mere af vores lovgivning over på EU? Det er efter min opfattelse ikke det værd, og rent praktisk vil intet af det, De foreslår, fungere - husk på, at bombemændene i Madrid og New York alle havde gyldige identifikationskort. Jeg beklager, hr. Schulz, men der er ikke noget, der hedder europæisk identitet. Vi skal håndtere disse problemer på nationalt plan og gennem samarbejde frem for at tro, at EU kan løse problemerne, for det kan EU ikke."@da² ". Herr Präsident! In der Europäischen Union gilt der altbewährte Grundsatz – der übrigens von Jean Monnet selbst aufgestellt wurde –, dass Krisen auch ihr Gutes haben: Wenn irgendetwas völlig schief läuft, wenn nationale Regierungen nicht mehr weiter wissen, wenn die Öffentlichkeit stark verängstigt ist, dann kann die Antwort nur mehr Integration und mehr zentrale Kontrolle seitens der Europäischen Union lauten. Ich habe diese Debatte seit den schrecklichen Anschlägen vor vier Jahren in New York ständig verfolgt, und es hat sich gezeigt, dass die Menschen in der Europäischen Union genau das anstreben, und zwar koste es, was es wolle. Es ist völlig klar, dass dies auch den Absichten von Herrn Clarke und der britischen Präsidentschaft entspricht. Natürlich kann ich das Argument verstehen, dass uns Telekommunikationsinformationen dabei helfen können, bestimmte Personen ausfindig zu machen. Doch Herr Clarke wies darauf hin, dass ein solcher Informationsaustausch nur stattfinden sollte, wenn eine eindeutige Rechtsgrundlage dafür vorhanden ist. Was für eine eindeutige Rechtsgrundlage gibt es denn in der Europäischen Union? In der Europäischen Union fehlt es doch an solchen Vorschriften; sie verfährt nach Gutdünken. Es wäre ein großer Fehler, dieser Organisation derart viele Informationen zur Verfügung zu stellen. Wir sollten eigentlich eine kooperative Herangehensweise verfolgen, aber dem ist ja offenbar nicht so, oder? Nein, wir können uns nicht mit Interpol zufrieden geben; wir können keine normalen Auslieferungsverträge zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten schließen! Wir müssen ja Europol haben; wir müssen ja den vollkommen missglückten europäischen Haftbefehl einführen. In allen Bereichen wird das Konzept der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Nationalstaaten über Bord geworfen, und stattdessen der europäischen Zentralgewalt immer mehr Macht eingeräumt. Ich war völlig bestürzt, als Sie sagten, Herr Clarke, dass es sich hierbei nicht um eine trockene Grundsatzdebatte handeln würde. Ich hätte gedacht, dass gerade jetzt der richtige Zeitpunkt wäre, um einmal innezuhalten und gründlich über gute Prinzipien nachzudenken. Lohnt es sich für uns Briten wirklich, wenn wir den Grundsatz der Unschuldsvermutung verlieren? Wollen wir wirklich unser Recht auf das Schwurgerichtsverfahren verlieren? Wollen wir wirklich auf das Instrument des Habeas Corpus – unseren wichtigsten Schutz vor dem Polizeistaat – verzichten? Lohnt es sich für uns wirklich, dass wir all dies im Namen des Antiterrorkampfes und der Erweiterung der gesetzgebenden Gewalt der Europäischen Union verlieren? Ich würde sagen Nein, denn in der Praxis wird keiner Ihrer Vorschläge funktionieren – schließlich hatten die Attentäter von Madrid und New York alle gültige Personaldokumente. So etwas wie eine „europäische Identität“ gibt es leider nicht, Herr Schulz. Daher sollten wir uns mit diesem Problem auf nationalstaatlicher Ebene befassen und zusammenarbeiten anstatt zu glauben, dass die Europäische Union irgendeines dieser Probleme lösen kann. Dazu wird sie nämlich nicht in der Lage sein."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση υφίσταται επί χρόνια μία αρχή, η οποία θεμελιώθηκε, μάλιστα, από τον ίδιο τον Jean Monnet, η αρχή της ευεργετικής κρίσης: όταν κάτι δεν πηγαίνει καλά, όταν οι κυβερνήσεις ανησυχούν για το τι να κάνουν, όταν οι πολίτες διακατέχονται από φόβους, τότε η απάντηση, βεβαίως, είναι η μεγαλύτερη ενοποίηση και ο μεγαλύτερος κεντρικός έλεγχος εντός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Παρακολουθώ αυτή τη συζήτηση από τις φρικιαστικές επιθέσεις στη Νέα Υόρκη πριν από τέσσερα χρόνια και αυτό προσπαθούν να κάνουν οι πολίτες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με κάθε αφορμή. Σαφέστατα το ίδιο σκοπεύουν να κάνουν ο κ. Clarke και η βρετανική Προεδρία. Βεβαίως, κατανοώ πλήρως το επιχείρημα ότι οι πληροφορίες μέσω τηλεφωνικής επικοινωνίας μπορούν να μας βοηθήσουν να εντοπίσουμε ανθρώπους. Ωστόσο, ο κ. Clarke είπε ότι πρέπει να μοιραζόμαστε αυτές τις πληροφορίες υπό την προϋπόθεση να υπάρχει σαφής νομική βάση λειτουργίας. Τι σαφής νομική βάση υπάρχει εντός αυτής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης; Δεν υπάρχουν κανονισμοί στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση λειτουργεί όπως επιθυμεί. Θα ήταν μεγάλο λάθος να εμπιστευτούμε αυτό το πλήθος πληροφοριών σε αυτόν τον οργανισμό. Πρέπει να προχωράμε μαζί μέσω της συνεργασίας, αλλά βεβαίως αυτή δεν είναι η προσέγγιση, έτσι δεν είναι; Όχι, δεν μπορούμε να έχουμε την Ιντερπόλ, δεν μπορούμε να έχουμε κανονικές συνθήκες έκδοσης μεταξύ των κρατών μελών! Πρέπει να έχουμε την Ευρωπόλ. Πρέπει να έχουμε το τραγικά προβληματικό ευρωπαϊκό ένταλμα σύλληψης. Σε κάθε στάδιο, η συνεργασία μεταξύ των κρατών τίθεται στο περιθώριο και αντικαθίσταται από τον κεντρικό έλεγχο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Έμεινα κατάπληκτος, κύριε Clarke, ακούγοντάς σας να λέτε ότι αυτή δεν είναι μία στείρα συζήτηση σχετικά με τις αρχές. Θα έλεγα ότι ιδιαίτερα αυτή τη στιγμή θα έπρεπε να κάνουμε ένα βήμα πίσω και να σκεφτούμε πραγματικά ποιες είναι καλές αρχές. Στην περίπτωση του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου, αξίζει να χάσουμε το τεκμήριο της αθωότητας πριν την ενοχή; Αξίζει να χάσουμε το δικαίωμά μας σε δίκη με σώμα ενόρκων; Αξίζει να χάσουμε το habeas corpus, τη βασική μας προστασία απέναντι στο κράτος αστυνόμευσης; Αξίζει να χάσουμε όλα αυτά τα πράγματα στο όνομα του πολέμου κατά της τρομοκρατίας και στο όνομα της παραχώρησης ακόμα μεγαλύτερου μέρους της νομοθετικής μας ικανότητας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση; Θα έλεγα ότι δεν αξίζει και, καθαρά πρακτικά, τίποτα από αυτά που προτείνετε δεν θα λειτουργήσει – θυμηθείτε ότι οι βομβιστές της Μαδρίτης και της Νέας Υόρκης είχαν ταυτότητες που ίσχυαν. Λυπάμαι, κύριε Schulz, αλλά δεν υπάρχει «ευρωπαϊκή ταυτότητα». Θα πρέπει να το αντιμετωπίσουμε αυτό σε εθνικό επίπεδο και να συνεργαστούμε, αντί να σκεφτόμαστε ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση μπορεί να λύσει οποιοδήποτε από αυτά τα θέματα. Δεν θα το κάνει."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, en la Unión Europea existe el arraigado principio, establecido, de hecho, por el propio Jean Monnet, de la crisis beneficiosa: siempre que algo va rematadamente mal, cuando los Gobiernos nacionales no saben qué hacer, cuando el público siente un gran temor, la respuesta, por supuesto, es más integración y más control centralizado en la Unión. Llevo observando este debate desde los trágicos atentados de Nueva York de hace cuatro años, y eso es lo que la gente de la Unión Europea ha intentado hacer en cada momento. Está muy claro que eso es lo que el señor Clarke y la Presidencia del Reino Unido quieren hacer. Por supuesto, entiendo sin problemas el argumento de que la información sobre comunicaciones telefónicas puede ayudarnos a encontrar y detener a personas. Pero el señor Clarke ha dicho que debemos compartir esta información siempre que haya un fundamento jurídico claro en el que basarnos. ¿Qué fundamento jurídico claro hay en la Unión Europea? La Unión Europea no tiene normas; hace lo que le da la gana. Sería un terrible error confiar a esta organización tal cantidad de información. Deberíamos avanzar juntos mediante la cooperación, pero está claro que ese no es el enfoque adecuado, ¿verdad? ¡No, no podemos basarnos en Interpol! ¡No podemos tener tratados de extradición normales entre Estados miembros! Tenemos que tener Europol; tenemos que tener la orden de detención europea, con sus muchos fallos. En cada fase, se olvida por completo la cooperación entre Estados nación y entra en escena el control central de la Unión Europea. Me he quedado pasmado cuando usted, señor Clarke, ha dicho que este no es un debate estéril sobre principios. Creía que precisamente era en este momento cuando debíamos dar un paso atrás y reflexionar sobre los buenos principios. En el caso del Reino Unido, ¿merece la pena olvidar el principio de la presunción de inocencia? ¿Merece la pena perder nuestro derecho a un juicio con jurado? ¿Merece la pena que perdamos el nuestra protección básica contra el Estado policial? ¿Merece la pena perder todas esas cosas en nombre de la guerra contra el terror y para ceder una nueva porción de nuestra capacidad legislativa a la Unión Europea? Yo diría que no y, en la práctica, ninguna de las medidas que propone van a funcionar; recuerde que quienes pusieron las bombas en Madrid y en Nueva York tenían documentos de identidad válidos. Lo siento, señor Schulz, pero no existe eso que se denomina «identidad europea». Debemos abordar este problema a escala nacional y cooperar, en lugar de pensar que la Unión Europea puede solucionarlo. No va a hacerlo."@es²⁰ "Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, Euroopan unionissa on kauan sitten vakiintunut periaate, joka on itse asiassa itsensä Jean Monnet'n vakiinnuttama ja liittyy suotuisiin kriiseihin: aina kun jokin menee pahasti vikaan, aina kun kansalliset hallitukset ovat huolissaan siitä, mitä tehdä, ja kansalaiset ovat syvästi peloissaan, niin silloin ratkaisu on tietysti yhdentymisen lisääminen ja vallan keskittäminen yhä enemmän Euroopan unionille. Olen seurannut tätä keskustelua aina neljän vuoden takaisista New Yorkin kauheista iskuista lähtien, ja juuri tämän periaatteen mukaisesti eurooppalaiset ovat aina pyrkineetkin toimimaan. On täysin selvää, että niin myös neuvoston puheenjohtaja Clarke ja puheenjohtajavaltio Yhdistynyt kuningaskuntakin aikovat toimia. Ymmärrän tietysti täysin perustelun, jonka mukaan teleliikennetiedot auttavat meitä jäljittämään ihmisiä. Neuvoston puheenjohtaja Clarke sanoi kuitenkin, että meidän olisi jaettava nämä tiedot vain mikäli toiminnalle on olemassa selvä oikeusperusta. Mitä selviä oikeusperusteita on olemassa täällä Euroopan unionissa? Euroopan unionissa ei ole sääntöjä, sillä Euroopan unioni tekee niin kuin se haluaa. Olisi hirvittävä virhe uskoa tälle organisaatiolle niin paljon tietoja. Meidän pitäisi edetä yhdessä yhteistyössä, mutta tietystikään se ei ole oikea lähestymistapa, vai onko? Ei, sillä meillä ei saa olla Interpolia eikä jäsenvaltioiden välillä saa olla tavallisia luovutussopimuksia! Meillä on oltava Europol ja meillä on oltava kohtalokkaan puutteellinen eurooppalainen pidätysmääräys. Kaikilla tasoilla yhteistyö kansallisvaltioiden välillä lentää ikkunasta ulos ja Euroopan unionin harjoittama keskusvalta tulee sen tilalle. Arvoisa neuvoston puheenjohtaja, olin ällikällä lyöty, kun sanoitte, ettei tämä ole puhdas periaatekeskustelu. Olisin ajatellut, että nyt kerrankin voisimme ottaa askeleen taaksepäin ja miettiä tarkkaan hyviä periaatteita. Jos puhutaan Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa sattuneesta tapauksesta, niin onko tämä sen arvoista, että menetämme olettamuksen ihmisen syyttömyydestä ennen kuin hänet todistetaan syylliseksi? Onko tämä sen arvoista, että menetämme oikeutemme oikeudenkäyntiin valamiehistön edessä? Onko tämä sen arvoista, että menetämme habeas corpus -periaatteen, joka on perussuojamme poliisivaltiota vastaan? Onko se sen arvoista, että menetämme kaikki nämä asiat terrorinvastaisen sodan nimissä ja työnnämme yhä suuremman osan lainsäädäntövallastamme Euroopan unionille? Minä sanoisin, että ei ole, ja käytännössä mikään ehdotuksistanne ei tule toimimaan – muistakaa, että kaikilla Madridin ja New Yorkin pommittajilla oli lailliset henkilöllisyystodistukset. Hyvä jäsen Schulz, olen pahoillani, mutta ei ole olemassa "eurooppalaista identiteettiä". Meidän pitäisi hoitaa tämä asia tekemällä yhteistyötä kansallisvaltioiden kesken sen sijaan, että ajattelemme Euroopan unionin kykenevän ratkaisemaan mitään. Se ei kykene siihen."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, il existe un principe établi de longue date dans l’Union européenne, établi en fait par Jean Monet lui-même, sur la crise bénéfique: quand les choses vont très mal, quand les gouvernements nationaux ne savent plus que faire, quand la population est apeurée, alors la réponse est bien entendu plus d’intégration et de contrôle central au sein de l’Union européenne. J’ai suivi ce débat depuis les effroyables attentats de New York il y a quatre ans et c’est ce que l’Union européenne a tenté de faire à chaque fois. Il est parfaitement clair que c’est ce que M. Clarke et la présidence britannique ont l’intention de faire. Je comprends bien sûr parfaitement l’argument suivant lequel les informations sur les communications téléphoniques peuvent nous aider à traquer et capturer ces individus. Mais M. Clarke a ajouté que nous devrions partager ces informations pour autant que nous disposions d’une base juridique claire pour ce faire. Où y a-t-il une base juridique claire dans cette Union européenne? L’Union européenne ne suit aucune règle. Elle fait ce que bon lui semble. Ce serait une terrible erreur de confier toutes ces informations à cette organisation. Nous devrions aller de l’avant ensemble en coopérant, mais nous n’avons pas adopté cette approche, n’est-ce pas? Non, nous ne pouvons recourir à Interpol, nous ne pouvons conclure des traités d’extradition normaux entre les États membres! Nous devons avoir Europol, nous devons avoir le mandat d’arrêt européen voué à l’échec. À chaque étape, la coopération entre les États-nations est jetée aux oubliettes et le contrôle central de l’Union européenne entre en jeu. J’ai été sidéré de vous entendre dire, Monsieur Clarke, qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un débat stérile sur des principes. Je pensais qu’à cette époque, entre toute, nous devrions faire marche arrière et réfléchir véritablement aux bons principes. Dans le cas du Royaume-Uni, cela vaut-il la peine de perdre la présomption d’innocence face à la culpabilité? Cela vaut-il la peine de perdre notre droit à être jugé par un jury? Cela vaut-il la peine de perdre notre notre protection fondamentale contre un État policier? Cela vaut-il la peine de perdre toutes ces acquis au nom de la guerre contre la terreur et en jetant encore davantage de notre capacité à légiférer dans les bras de l’Union européenne? Je dirais que non et, dans la pratique, aucune de vos propositions ne donnera de résultats - souvenez-vous que les plastiqueurs de Madrid et de New York avaient tous des cartes d’identité valides. Je suis désolé, Monsieur Schulz, «l’identité européenne» n’existe pas. Nous devrions régler cette question au niveau des États-nations et coopérer, au lieu de croire que l’Union européenne peut résoudre quoi que ce soit. Ce ne sera pas le cas."@fr⁸ "Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@hu¹¹ ". Signor Presidente, esiste un principio di lunga data nell’Unione europea, di fatto stabilito dallo stesso Jean Monnet, cioè quello della crisi salutare: quando qualcosa va molto male, quando i governi nazionali si preoccupano di che cosa fare, quando i cittadini sono in preda a una paura profonda, la risposta, naturalmente, è maggiore integrazione e maggiore controllo centrale all’interno dell’Unione europea. Seguo il dibattito sin dai terribili attentati di New York quattro anni fa, e questo è ciò che si è tentato di fare nell’Unione europea in ogni occasione. E’ perfettamente chiaro che questo è ciò che intendono fare il Ministro Clarke e la Presidenza britannica. Naturalmente, comprendo molto bene l’argomento secondo cui i dati delle comunicazioni telefoniche possono aiutarci a rintracciare le persone. Tuttavia, il Ministro Clarke ha affermato che dobbiamo condividere tali informazioni, purché esista una chiara base giuridica su cui operare. Quale chiara base giuridica esiste nell’Unione europea? Non esistono regole nell’Unione europea; ognuno fa quel che vuole. Sarebbe un terribile errore affidare a questa organizzazione una tale quantità di informazioni. Dovremmo procedere insieme, cooperando tra noi, ma ovviamente non è questa l’intenzione, vero? No, non possiamo avere l’Interpol, non possiamo avere normali accordi di estradizione tra Stati membri! Dobbiamo avere l’Europol, dobbiamo avere un mandato d’arresto europeo inevitabilmente difettoso. In ogni occasione, la cooperazione tra Stati nazionali esce dalla finestra e dalla porta entra il controllo centrale dell’Unione europea. Sono rimasto basito quando ha affermato, Ministro Clarke, che questo non è un dibattito sterile su questioni di principio. Pensavo che questo fosse proprio il momento in cui si dovrebbe fare un passo indietro e riflettere seriamente sui buoni principi. Nel caso del Regno Unito, merita perdere la presunzione di innocenza prima della condanna? Merita perdere il diritto a un processo con giuria? Merita rinunciare all’ la nostra protezione fondamentale contro lo Stato di polizia? Merita perdere tutti questi diritti nel nome della guerra al terrorismo e per spingere sempre più la nostra capacità legislativa verso l’Unione europea? Direi di no e, in termini pratici, niente di ciò che proponete funzionerà: vi ricordo che gli attentatori di Madrid e di New York avevano tutti documenti di identità validi. Mi spiace, onorevole Schulz, ma non esiste alcuna “identità europea”. Dovremmo affrontare questi problemi a livello di Stati nazionali e cooperare tra noi, anziché pensare che l’Unione europea possa risolverli. Non li risolverà."@it¹² "Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@lv¹³ "Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, er bestaat een oud beginsel in de Europese Unie dat nog in het leven is geroepen door Jean Monnet zelf, en dat is het beginsel van de “weldadige crisis”: wanneer iets helemaal misgaat, wanneer nationale regeringen zich afvragen wat zij moeten doen en wanneer de burgers gegrepen zijn door angst, is het antwoord uiteraard gelegen in meer integratie en meer centrale controle binnen de Europese Unie. Ik volg dit debat al sinds de verschrikkelijke aanslagen in New York vier jaar geleden en het beeld wat ik zojuist heb geschetst, komt overeen met de manier waarop de burgers in de Europese Unie op elke aanslag reageren. Het is overduidelijk dat de heer Clarke en het Britse voorzitterschap ook naar meer centrale controle streven. Het argument dat wij met behulp van telecommunicatie-inlichtingen mensen beter kunnen opsporen, begrijp ik natuurlijk volkomen. De heer Clarke heeft echter gezegd dat wij deze inlichtingen alleen mogen delen als daarvoor een duidelijke rechtsgrondslag is. Welke rechtsgrondslag in de Europese Unie zou dat dan moeten zijn? Er zijn geen regels in de Europese Unie; de Unie doet wat haar goeddunkt. Het zou een grote fout zijn als wij deze organisatie een dergelijk grote hoeveelheid informatie zouden toevertrouwen. Wij zouden eigenlijk samen vooruit moeten gaan met samenwerking, maar dat is uiteraard niet de aanpak die gevolgd wordt. Of wel? Neen! Want Interpol is blijkbaar geen alternatief, en wij krijgen ook geen normale uitleveringsverdragen tussen lidstaten! In plaats daarvan krijgen wij Europol en het op cruciale punten tekortschietende Europees arrestatiebevel. Telkens weer vertrekt de samenwerking tussen de lidstaten via de achterdeur en komt de centrale controle van de Europese Unie via de hoofddeur binnen. Ik was met stomheid geslagen toen u, mijnheer Clarke, zei dat dit geen steriel debat over beginselen was. Ik zou zeggen dat, als er ooit een moment is geweest om een stapje terug te doen en grondig na te denken over goede uitgangspunten, dat dat hier en nu is. Wegen de huidige ontwikkelingen op tegen het feit dat bijvoorbeeld in het Verenigd Koninkrijk afstand gedaan is van het principe dat iemand onschuldig is totdat het tegendeel is bewezen? Moeten wij hiervoor onze juryrechtspraak opgeven? En hoe zit het met de en onze fundamentele bescherming tegen de politiestaat? Is het de moeite waard om al deze verworvenheden op te offeren aan de strijd tegen het terrorisme en om de Europese Unie een nog grotere wetgevende functie te geven? Naar mijn idee is dat niet het geval. In de praktijk zullen uw voorstellen overigens geen effect sorteren. Ik roep in herinnering dat degenen die de bomaanslagen in Madrid en New York hebben gepleegd, allemaal in het bezit waren van een geldig legitimatiebewijs. Het spijt me, mijnheer Schulz, maar er bestaat ook niet zoiets als een “Europese identiteit’. Wij moeten dit probleem op lidstaatniveau en op basis van een onderlinge samenwerking aanpakken. Wij moeten er niet vanuit gaan dat de Europese Unie ook maar de minste bijdrage kan leveren aan de oplossing ervan. Daartoe is de Unie niet in staat."@nl³ "Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, um princípio há muito consagrado na União Europeia, preconizado, de resto, pelo próprio Jean Monnet, é o princípio da “crise benéfica”, segundo o qual, sempre que algo está a correr muito mal, e os governos estão preocupados quanto ao rumo a tomar, e a opinião pública se mostra profundamente receosa, a resposta é obviamente mais integração e mais controlo central na União Europeia. Tenho assistido a essa argumentação desde os terríveis ataques em Nova Iorque, há quatro anos atrás, e é isso que se tem procurado fazer na União Europeia cada vez que a ocasião a tal se presta. É por demais evidente que é também essa a intenção do Senhor Charles Clarke e da Presidência britânica. Claro que compreendo perfeitamente o argumento de que a retenção dos dados das telecomunicações nos pode ajudar a apanhar as pessoas. Só que o Senhor Charles Clarke afirmou que tais informações devem ser partilhadas contanto que exista uma base jurídica inequívoca para o fazer. Onde está essa base jurídica inequívoca na União Europeia? A União Europeia não tem regras, actua a seu bel-prazer. Seria um tremendo erro confiar a esta organização tamanha quantidade de informação. Deveríamos avançar juntos através da cooperação recíproca, mas claro que a abordagem escolhida não é essa, pois não? Não, não podemos ter a Interpol; não podemos ter tratados normais de extradição entre os Estados-Membros! Temos de ter a Europol; temos de ter o fatalmente eivado mandado de captura europeu. A cooperação entre os Estados-nação é sucessivamente descartada, enquanto ganha terreno o controlo central da União Europeia . Fiquei estupefacto, Senhor Charles Clarke, ao ouvi-lo dizer que este não é um estéril debate sobre princípios. Pensei que neste debate, mais do que qualquer outro, devíamos recuar um passo e reflectir ponderadamente sobre os bons princípios. No caso do Reino Unido, será que nos vale a pena abdicar do princípio da presunção de inocência antes de decretada a culpa? Será que nos vale a pena perder o direito a um julgamento com intervenção de júri? Valer-nos-á a pena perder o a nossa protecção fundamental contra o estado policial? Valer-nos-á a pena abdicar de tudo isto em nome da guerra contra o terrorismo e em nome da pressão exercida sobre a nossa capacidade legisladora para que se aproxime cada vez mais da União Europeia? Pessoalmente, diria que não, e, na prática, nada do que V. Exas. estão a propor resultará - lembrem-se de que os bombistas de Madrid e os de Nova Iorque eram detentores, todos eles, de documentos de identificação válidos. Lamento, Senhor Deputado Schulz, mas a “identidade europeia” é algo que não existe. Deveríamos acometer esta problemática a nível nacional e cooperarmos entre nós, em lugar de julgarmos que a União Europeia consegue minimamente resolvê-la. Não conseguirá."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union. I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do. Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information. We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in. I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union? I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Principen om den välgörande krisen etablerats för länge sedan i EU, faktiskt av självaste Jean Monnet: närhelst något går mycket snett, närhelst de nationella regeringarna oroar sig för vad de ska göra, när allmänheten är mycket rädd är svaret automatiskt mer integration och mer central övervakning inom EU. Jag har följt denna debatt alltsedan de hemska attackerna i New York för fyra år sedan, och detsamma har folket i EU försökt att göra vid varje attentat. Det råder inget tvivel om att detta är vad Charles Clarke och Förenade kungarikets ordförandeskap har för avsikt att göra. Jag förstår naturligtvis mycket väl argumentet att information från telekommunikationer kan hjälpa oss att spåra människor. Men Charles Clarke sa att vi skulle utbyta denna information under förutsättning att det fanns en tydlig rättslig grund att agera utifrån. Vilken tydlig rättslig grund finns det inom EU? Det finns inga regler inom EU, utan man gör som man vill. Det vore ett stort misstag att betro denna organisation med en sådan mängd information. Vi bör gå framåt genom att samarbeta, men detta är förstås inte strategin, eller hur? Nej, vi kan inte ha Interpol och vi kan inte ha normala utlämningsavtal mellan medlemsstaterna! Vi måste ha Europol och vi måste ha den fördärvligt bristfälliga europeiska arresteringsordern. I varje stadium försvinner samarbetet mellan nationalstaterna och ersätts med central övervakning från EU:s sida. Jag blev helt mållös när ni, Charles Clarke, sa att detta inte är en steril debatt om principer. Jag trodde att vi nu, om någonsin, borde ta ett steg tillbaka och verkligen fundera över goda principer. När det gäller Förenade kungariket: Är det värt att vi förlorar principen om att någon är oskyldig tills motsatsen är bevisad? Är det värt att vi förlorar rätten till juryrättegång? Är det värt att vi förlorar skyddet mot frihetsberövande, som är vårt grundläggande skydd mot polisstaten? Är det värt att vi förlorar allt detta för kriget mot terrorn och för att föra över ännu mer av vår lagstiftningsförmåga till EU? Jag skulle säga att det inte är det, inget av det ni föreslår kommer att fungera i praktiken – glöm inte att alla bombattentatsmännen i Madrid och i New York hade giltiga identitetshandlingar. Jag är ledsen, herr Schulz, men det finns ingen ”europeisk identitet”. Vi bör ta itu med detta på nationalstatlig nivå och samarbeta i stället för att tro att EU kan lösa allt detta. Det kommer inte att ske."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Nigel Farage,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "habeas corpus"^3,20,17,12,8 "on behalf of the IND/DEM Group"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4}