Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.2.3-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, there is a long-established principle in the European Union, established, in fact, by Jean Monnet himself, of the beneficial crisis: whenever something is going badly wrong, whenever national governments are concerned as to what to do, when the public are deeply fearful, then the answer, of course, is more integration and more central control within the European Union.
I have been watching this debate ever since the appalling attacks in New York four years ago, and that is what people in the European Union have tried to do at every attempt. It is perfectly clear that is what Mr Clarke and the UK Presidency intend to do.
Of course, I understand clearly the argument that telephone communication information can help us to track down people. But Mr Clarke said that we should share this information provided that there was a clear legal basis upon which to operate. What clear legal basis is there inside this European Union? There are no rules in the European Union; it does as it wishes. It would be a terrible mistake to entrust this organisation with that amount of information.
We should be moving forward together by cooperating, but of course that is not the approach, is it? No, we cannot have Interpol; we cannot have normal extradition treaties between Member States! We have to have Europol; we have to have the fatally flawed European arrest warrant. At every stage, cooperation between nation states goes out of the window and central control from the European Union comes in.
I was flabbergasted to hear you say, Mr Clarke, that this is not a sterile debate about principles. I would have thought that at this, of all times, we ought to take a step back and have a real think about good principles. In the case of the United Kingdom, is it worth us losing the presumption of innocence before guilt? Is it worth us losing our right to trial by jury? Is it worth us losing habeas corpus, our basic protection against the police state? Is it worth us losing all of these things in the name of the war on terror and in the name of pushing yet more of our law-making ability towards the European Union?
I would say that it is not, and, in practical terms, none of what you are proposing will work – remember that the Madrid bombers and the New York bombers all had valid I.D. I am sorry, Mr Schulz, but there is no such thing as a 'European identity'. We should be dealing with this at a nation state level and cooperating together, rather than thinking that the European Union can solve any of this. It will not."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples