Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-19-Speech-2-192"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-01-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Procedural rights in criminal proceedings (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100119.9.2-192"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-01-19-Speech-2-1932
lpv:speaker	lp:Sir Graham Watson2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, this House proposed the creation of the European Arrest Warrant on 6 September 2001. Our proposal would still be on a shelf gathering dust if it had not been for the events in New York five days later. Mr Bin Laden helped make it a reality, and it was to me that fell the honour of piloting the measure through the House. This House insisted at the time that it should be accompanied by minimum procedural guarantees in criminal legal proceedings. The Commission made its proposals in 2002 and undertook to see speedy action. So why is it that until recently, this has been stuck in the Council’s in-tray? Why has the Commission not been waging war to see all of its proposals approved, and not have them approved separately? The European Arrest Warrant has replaced extradition. It has substantially cut the time needed for surrender. It has encouraged direct contact between Member States’ judicial authorities. It has ruled out decisions based on political expediency to the extent that Member States surrender their own nationals. It has vastly enhanced the rule of law on our continent, but the European Arrest Warrant relies on mutual trust, and there are too many cases where such trust is called into question by our citizens. Two of my constituents are currently in detention in Hungary awaiting trial. Though their extradition was requested over a year ago, and though they have been there for two months, they have not yet been indicted and their trial may yet be months away. One has lost his job and his family’s main source of income. Both are deprived of the company of loved ones. And yet both may be innocent of the crimes of which they are charged. Cases like this give European judicial cooperation a bad name. They pour shame on the inaction of governments in Council. The authors of this oral question are right: they require Europe’s urgent attention."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 chair; Delegation for relations with India (2009-09-30--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; AFET (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; PECH (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2009-09-30--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2009-07-20--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Liberal Democrats Party (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))"1 "Graham Watson,"1 "on behalf of the ALDE Group."1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph