Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-23-Speech-1-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020923.4.1-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is thanks to the reform of the Rules of Procedure that we are here today discussing a text which – as has happened on many, too many occasions in Parliament – will be adopted by the Council in a different form from that in which it was submitted, while we are denied the chance to debate the European Union’s proposals on terrorism, which are much more important in terms of the rights and freedoms of the European citizens than the document we are now compelled to debate.
I refer, in particular, to Mr Galeote Quecedo’s report, which examines two proposals made by the Kingdom of Spain. We are going to vote on this report tomorrow without even having the chance to debate it. I am talking about texts on which the Commission itself, which is usually slow to adopt positions, has expressed convincing reservations of a legal and political nature, which are, moreover, appended to our report. I am sad to say that the major Parliamentary political groups, clearly concerned to conceal the contents of the measures from public opinion, have decided to deprive the House even of the usual semblance of a debate. This is deplorable. Thus, we are not going to talk about the Kingdom of Spain’s proposal on police and judicial cooperation to combat terrorism, a proposal which we could certainly endorse. However, the proposal to use joint investigation teams, as well as Europol and Eurojust, to facilitate such exchanges raises problems which Parliament has mentioned on several occasions: the absence of democratic and judicial control over Europol and Eurojust and their essential lack of connection to the Community; the lack of specific guarantees concerning the action of members of the joint investigation teams.
Such aspects, relating to investigations and criminal procedure, are in many cases codified in detail at national level as part of the Member States' legal codes or even their constitutions so as to be able to determine the rights and duties of the parties involved. All this is lacking at European level
The second proposal of the Kingdom of Spain is also being concealed from the citizens. This relates to the mechanism for evaluating the legal systems and their implementation at national level in the fight against terrorism, which, as explained by the European Commission, is still unacceptable because it is incomplete and unspecific and its legal basis is misapplied. In other words, once again, the fight against terrorism is being used as a pretext for riding roughshod over principles and rules. Indeed, the initiative goes beyond what is authorised under the proposed legal basis and the evaluation comes on top of that already provided for under the Framework Decision on the fight against terrorism.
We must ensure that the Council hears what we have to say, rejecting a text which will never be approved and rejecting texts which are based on the intention to combat terrorism even at the cost of undermining the fundamental freedoms and rights which are at the heart of democracy itself. The major political groups have decided not to discuss these issues, whereas a debate is necessary and would have yielded useful results."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples