Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.3.3-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, I should like to say that my group is genuinely delighted that the two Watson reports have today been adopted at second reading. One on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States, and the other on a common definition of terrorism.
We accept the outcome of the Laeken Summit and my group feels that it contains everything that Parliament has been calling for in the first Watson report. I congratulate the Belgian Presidency on approving this document, despite the problems that some delegations raised and I should like to reiterate our congratulations to the Council and the Commission and our happiness at the adoption of these texts.
Therefore, we will be voting in favour of one Watson report, which does not include amendments to the text, which we feel was consolidated at the last Summit. We will be doing so for the reasons that I have explained, but I should now like, ladies and gentlemen, to tell you why we will be voting against the amendments that have been tabled. There is a set of amendments tabled by Members of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance that seek to make approval of the arrest warrant conditional on improvements to certain judicial standards in the European Union.
We agree with the aim of these amendments, but we do not accept the imposition of conditions. We also think that the adoption of an instrument as revolutionary as the European arrest warrant must motivate the States of the European Union to make this improvement to their judicial standards. The order in which we are working could, at least, be practical and produce some positive results.
Other amendments, tabled by other Members, seek, from the establishment of a European
act to other objectives with which we also agree, but we do not feel that this is the appropriate legal instrument to guide them.
We are going to work, and I commit my group to this here today, to ensure that these objectives are, in future, met and we shall do so in conjunction with the Commission and the Council. Here they will find us, supporting them in their initiatives, on which we might table proposals ourselves, but I do not believe that the time is right for voting in favour of these amendments.
I was saying, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that my group is pleased at the approval of these two instruments. Furthermore, we consider these instruments to be our own, because this Parliament – as you reminded us – has put a great deal of work into achieving this. Therefore – as you have said – we find it difficult to accept the way in which on 27 December decisions were taken on the four legislative instruments to establish a list of terrorists in the European Union.
I am happy with what you have said and I hope that we are able to re-establish constructive dialogue and maintain our relationship of trust. I also join Mr Watson in asking for the instruments of cooperation in criminal matters to be brought within the first pillar. I am sure that between all of us, we will be able to overcome the democratic deficit from which we are obviously suffering
Mr President, I have no respect for those who seek to take the lives of others in order to achieve their aims. None at all. In my view, no effort to put an end to this is too great. On the other hand, however, I have the greatest respect for our democratic system and rights, and also believe that Parliament has an obligation to defend them with the same enthusiasm."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples