Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-084"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-03-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European crime prevention network (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010313.10.2-084"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-03-13-Speech-2-0852
lpv:speaker	lp:Maurizio Turco2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Lista Emma Bonino (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; TGI (1999-07-20--2001-10-02)3 member; Delegation for relations with South Africa (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; PETI (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, it would almost appear that we have to vote on a issue which is a foregone conclusion, that is on whether Parliament is for or against crime. Our concern is completely different from anything discussed thus far: our concern is whether or not to stage another bureaucratic monstrosity. We are against this. We are against it even though we know that there is no Member of this or any other parliament, or rather, there is no sensible person on earth, I feel, who would not be against crime and in favour of its prevention. However, whether we want a bureaucratic monstrosity is another matter. As we know, when the European Union is unable to find solutions at institutional level, it resorts to monitoring centres, networks and bodies: monitoring centres, networks and bodies which, in actual fact, infringe the democratic rights of the citizens, entrusting them to institutions which are not democratically controlled. The Lisbon Monitoring Centre has been mentioned. I do not want to go into the issue of a European Union which widely funds a United Nations crime-fighting body. The United Nations decided to carry out an internal inquiry into how these funds are spent: of course, the European Union does not feel the need to do this. It was said of bureaucratic monstrosities such as Europol, Eurodac and Eurojust that it is precisely they which now prevent us from regulating criminal policies. There is another reason why we are going to vote against the motion. Without wanting to detract from the rapporteur's work, it is the very proposal of the French Republic and Sweden which fails to apply the principle of subsidiarity in this area. As yet, we fail to understand what the concept of crime prevention is, for it is not defined anywhere in the proposal or the report. This is why we are going to vote against the motion: primarily because it supports this European network."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph