Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.4.3-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"President-in-Office of the Council, today, for the first time, we are debating an extradition agreement between the European Union and the United States on which no parliament in the European Union, not even the European Parliament, has been consulted. I would therefore like to thank you very much for being here with us today, but I am also quite aware of the fact that we have virtually no room for manoeuvre at all, given that, as you yourself have said, everything may well have been decided by 5 June.
Once again, negotiations on matters which are absolutely crucial for the citizens’ freedoms and rights are being carried out, or rather have been carried out, with a complete lack of transparency, and we have only been able to see behind the veil where
are concerned. The Council persists in refusing any kind of formal consultation of the European Parliament.
At times like these, when there are many who believe that democracy and rights can be exported by means of unlawful wars, I find this particularly disturbing. We consider it to be a clear violation of the Treaty, and we are assessing the feasibility of appealing to the Court on the grounds of violation of the prerogatives of the European Parliament. I genuinely hope that the majority of Parliament will be of the opinion that it is possible to lodge an appeal of this kind.
We have many grounds for scepticism and concern regarding this agreement, including the failure to give priority to the European arrest warrant in the event of simultaneous requests and the ambiguity which persists even on matters on which there is as little disagreement in this House as data protection or the death penalty. We wonder, moreover, why it is that we are in such a hurry to conclude this agreement when we know that a number of European citizens are being held prisoner wholly unlawfully at Guantánamo, as has already been mentioned by other Members, and that nothing is known of them.
If the Union and Parliament want to live up to their reputation as at least verbal champions of rights, we must get moving and send a delegation without delay to ascertain the conditions in which those citizens are being held before we sign an agreement with the United States. It will be interesting, and possibly even amusing, to see whether the United States allows us to do that.
Today, however, we would like to receive answers on the possible – or rather, probable – contradictions between this agreement and the Statute of the International Criminal Court, on which, I regret to say, you did not focus, President-in-Office. We would like a clear response to the following questions. Is it true that the United States, actively supported by the United Kingdom, is opposed to any reference to the Criminal Court in the agreement? What will happen in the event of conflict between the Rome Statute, in particular the obligation to cooperate with the Criminal Court, and the EU-US extradition agreement? Lastly, given the unambiguous position of the European Parliament, not least, which is opposed to the bilateral agreements guaranteeing the impunity of US citizens, could you please tell us whether any of the present or future Members of the European Union have been asked to sign these agreements? Do you know of the existence of any agreements of this kind?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples