Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.5.3-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, when we are reflecting on the problems of improving procedures in the House it is worth noticing that an explanation of vote of this kind is one way one can reply to a point taken by the Commissioner at the end of a debate.
At the end of the debate on the Watson report, Mr Vitorino said that the amendment relating to the
order would risk confusing the issue and undermine respect for human rights. In that he completely ignored the point that the first condition stated for the operation of that amendment was for there to be a violation of human rights in the receiving state.
The point I made in my speech in the debate was that it is not enough to have common agreement to respect rights; you must have effective remedies. That text of ours would have put in an effective remedy. Since Parliament in its wisdom (or unwisdom) chose not to adopt it, I voted against the Watson report on the Arrest Warrant. Other Members from the United Kingdom will come to regret that they did not too.
Some of my colleagues in the European Free Alliance – a majority of them – voted for the Watson report; not that they did not also regret the absence of the
amendment, but that they felt a strong commitment in conscience, as we all do, to getting the European judicial space going forward, and thought that necessary."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples