Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-10-Speech-3-100"

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	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101110.15.3-100"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-11-10-Speech-3-1012
lpv:speaker	lp:Rui Tavares2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2011-06-23)3 unknown; Bloco de Esquerda (Independente) (2009-07-14--2011-06-29)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries (2009-09-16--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 countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2011-06-23)3 substitute; CULT (2009-07-16--2011-06-23)3
lpv:translated text	"When discussing this Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement, we all remember what happened in the case of SWIFT; it has already cropped up several times in this debate. The case of SWIFT was a telling one. We may disagree about SWIFT itself, and we certainly voted differently in this Chamber, but we are all agreed on one thing: we have learned a great deal about what to do and what not to do. About what to do: we learned that Parliament must speak very firmly in defending the privacy interests of 500 million citizens. This time, moreover, the fact that we have six political groups participating in writing a resolution means that we intend to use the voice of Parliament in a clearer and more united way. Yet we also know a lot about what not to do. At this stage of the negotiations on PNR, we can still use what we have learnt. This is clearly that the Council should prepare its mandate, which we will read very carefully; the Commission should conduct the negotiations, as it is the negotiator; and Parliament should have the final say. However, at the same time, what we have learnt is much more than that. It is obvious that Parliament should be kept informed at all stages, but at this juncture, I appeal directly to the Commission: the Commission could also accept Parliament’s ideas during the course of this process. I recall that with SWIFT, for instance, it was Parliament’s idea to have a supervisor in Washington. In the course of this process, Parliament is bound to have many ideas that should be included in the negotiations without, of course, trampling on the prerogatives of the Commission, but the fact is that Parliament will have the final word and on this negotiation, and it will certainly use it. There is also one thing that I believe we should not forget in this process, which we have, at times, forgotten, namely, that these data are personal data. This means that we are dealing with loaned data belonging to members of the public, as we say in our resolution when talking about the concept of informational self-determination. This means that at all moments in this process and during the use of such data in the future, they will have to have direct access to what is being done with their data."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"de facto"1 "de jure"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