Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-10-Speech-3-502"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-02-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Agreement between the EU and the USA on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100210.28.3-502"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-02-10-Speech-3-5032
lpv:speaker	lp:Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba2
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, some of the honourable Members are calling for an interim agreement and others for a permanent agreement. With regard to the timing, it is clearly not the same to bring to this House the foundations of a definitive agreement, or in other words, to bring a commitment from the United States to include some of the precautionary measures and suggestions put forward by this House, as it is to bring a new agreement to the table. If the honourable Member is asking me whether we can bring a new agreement to this House in one month’s time, the answer is no. If you are asking whether, within a deadline of a few months, we can bring to this House the results of dialogue between the United States and Parliament, whose participation is very important, so that we can debate whether we are right in thinking that the definitive agreement will be much better than the present one, my answer is yes. In my opinion, we are capable of achieving this. This is precisely what I am asking for. Therefore, I am not specifically referring to the rapporteur’s proposal, which I admit I have not seriously considered this afternoon after assessing the general mood and the multiple actions and speeches against the signing of the interim agreement. Let me reiterate my opinion that things being as they are, it is a much more realistic option to ask the House for a deadline of say three months, to give us time to bring forward the foundations of an agreement with the United States for debate in Parliament. In other words, this agreement would include the elements that we in the EU (Commission, Council and Parliament) and the United States believe should be incorporated into the definitive agreement that would subsequently be negotiated. I believe that in these circumstances, the debate we are having today would be radically different."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph