Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.11.3-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In principle, the June List believes that a decision with such far-reaching implications for people should not be taken on the basis of a qualified majority. Instead, the procedure should be directly subject to the national parliaments, and decisions should be taken at intergovernmental level with the unanimous agreement of the Council and following cooperation with the police and the criminal justice system.
We also believe that the proposal goes much too far in view of its expected benefits. The Member States should make it easier to exchange information among themselves in order more efficiently to combat terrorism and organised crime. Such cooperation does not, however, require harmonisation at EU level for the purpose of retaining the huge quantity of information involved.
The proposal also gives rise to considerable misgivings concerning the way in which citizens’ freedoms and rights are observed in a situation in which people in general are under suspicion. The June List does not wish to help create a society in Europe in which people are under surveillance. If a Member State wishes to introduce the compulsory retention of data, it should only do so following a proper national debate with a decision taken in its national parliament. To sneak in such sweeping legislation through the back door is extremely incongruous from a democratic point of view."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples