Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-21-Speech-3-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100421.5.3-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to contradict those who have spoken so far on one point: I am not interested in arriving at an agreement as soon as possible, but in achieving one that is as good as possible. Quality must come before timeframe. I would like to make one other preliminary remark. The European Parliament has already rejected an agreement once and one aspect among the many reasons relating to content was the lack of European Parliament participation.
In view of current events this week, we have decided not to adopt any decisions here in Parliament. Then there is the decision to call on the Council to likewise postpone its decisions until we can adopt our decisions. I am now rather surprised that there are Members of the House, who clearly do not take their own decisions seriously but think: well yes, despite this, the Council can simply decide. I do not think we can treat our own decisions like that. I still maintain that the Council should also withhold its decision until after 6 May when we have decided. I am sure there are no disadvantages to this and that the United States would be understanding.
As for the draft mandate itself, I take a favourable view of the fact that the Commission is committed to meeting our demands. Nevertheless, I would like to say clearly that there still need to be substantial amendments to this negotiating mandate. These are necessary if a majority of the European Parliament is to vote in favour of a new agreement. In my opinion, the current mandate is not ambitious enough to achieve this. The problem of bulk data transfer remains unresolved. If the US authorities tell us that every month we are talking about the specific details of five to ten people, then the transfer of millions of pieces of data relating to European citizens is surely disproportionate to this purpose.
Incidentally, I would like to say again to the Commission and the Council that although it is constantly maintained that this agreement will be highly significant as an additional means of combating terrorism, the proof of this is not as clear as we are always being told. The long period of retention of data in the United States also continues to be a problem. The mandate does not offer a solution here either. We need a judicial authority on European soil that not only checks the legality of US applications, but also the extraction of data, wherever this takes place. The transmission of information to third countries must be regulated with clear directives. We need an ambitious mandate with our demands. Only then can we achieve a really good result that meets our demands, taking into account data protection as well as the fight against terror.
Finally, I have another specific question for the Council and the Commission. How do you intend to ensure that only data that was specifically requested is extracted and passed on? How can that work? In the United States? Or are there other proposals?"@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples