Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-10-Speech-3-095"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-11-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU external strategy on Passenger Name Record (PNR) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101110.15.3-095"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-11-10-Speech-3-0962
lpv:speaker	lp:Axel Voss2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2012-09-09)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; BUDG (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; PETI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, tomorrow’s vote on Passenger Name Records would not have been necessary had we here in Parliament been taken more seriously and kept better informed by the Commission and the Council on the subject of the forwarding of data by the EU and its Member States to third countries since the SWIFT decision. If interinstitutional relations continue in this way, there is a risk that we will end up in the same psychological situation with the US in respect of PNR as was the case with SWIFT. Nobody wants that, and I also think it would be very dangerous. Nonetheless, we must still make the effort to resolve this. When it comes down to it, what I feel is missing here is a clear concept of what exchange of data is required in order to prevent terror; we can then adopt a position on the basis of this. First SWIFT, then PNR; then came the memorandum of understanding with national databases being accessed; then a framework agreement with the US; then the amendment of our own data protection amending act; now we want to install this programme for one-stop security – it all seems rather piecemeal to me. Moreover, we need to clarify or find out once and for all what data the US actually needs to prevent terror, as well as how we can assist with this and bring it about. What we have seen so far is a kind of salami tactics, and that is damaging. I know that there has been a break as a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, but it is even more damaging for us if the Council and Commission do not keep us informed of these processes. I am therefore asking the representatives of the Council and the Commission for five things. Firstly, please develop a sensible concept that sets out comprehensively and conclusively what the exchange of data for the purposes of fighting terrorism involves. I also ask you to bring about coherence in the EU on matters relating to the forwarding of data and not to divide these into national and European matters. I also ask that the competence for decisions on these matters be set at a general European level and for the opportunity to take into account that we may prefer to conclude PNR agreements with Canada and Australia. Finally, I request that the process be speeded up, because the terrorists are constantly revealing where our security is lacking – just as recently in the case of freight transport."@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