Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-05-Speech-3-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070905.2.3-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the President-in-Office of the Council and the Vice-President of the European Commission sincerely for their detailed replies to our questions. I am pleased that this debate gives us the opportunity to look back in order to move forward again. At the forefront of this debate is the question of what measures have been taken to combat terrorism and whether these have been effective. More important still is the question of whether the measures conflict with the democratic rule of law.
Today, we are to vote on amending the rules on hand luggage in air transport. Mr Watson has already spoken about this. This vote – I hope – will put an end to a controversial measure. The rules on liquids are ineffective and arouse great opposition. We must ensure that the fight against terrorism does not become a policy of delusion. An enormous amount of information has been gathered since the 2001 attacks – yet data collection must lead to data processing. After the attacks in London and Madrid it emerged that the intelligence services did indeed have data at their disposal but did not act in time. The data may be available, but application remains a problem.
Recently, a book was published in the Netherlands about terrorism and those combating it. This argues from a historical perspective that the effectiveness of terrorism is limited. The fight against terrorism, on the other hand, sometimes has a major impact on society, resulting in irritation. Those combating terrorism lose their moral credit balance with citizens in the course of this battle – which is a gain for the terrorists. When we take new measures, therefore, we must strike the right balance between the rule of law and an effective fight against terrorism. Monitoring is a legitimate parliamentary instrument in this regard.
The former Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, Gijs de Vries, said that in his experience not one Member State wanted a European police force or a European security service. Member States want security to continue to be organised at national level. Yet we are still trying to organise European cooperation. One problem that follows from this is the lack of democratic control of such cooperation. National parliaments monitor their own services, but not this cooperation. What does the Council think about informing the European Parliament consistently and regularly? By this I do not mean primarily presenting new measures for approval, but answering the questions that have now been raised so often. As is the case with the national parliamentary security committees, such meetings should be allowed to take place behind closed doors. I should like to hear whether the Council wishes to cooperate on this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples