Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-009-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120419.4.4-009-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, today we are at the conclusion of a process which started in March 2003. We have been working on this transatlantic data sharing deal for nine years, and I think that – whatever the outcome of today’s vote – one conclusion that we can already draw is that it is telling and disappointing that, after nine years of negotiations with our closest friend and ally, we can only come up with an agreement that commands half-hearted support from a divided House. I therefore think that, whatever today’s outcome, we need to have a closer look at how we deal with our transatlantic friends and at the position of the European Union in the transatlantic partnership. We need to reflect on whether we are not weak compared with our partner.
As you all know, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) voted a couple of weeks ago and – to my regret – rejected my recommendation to vote against the EU-US agreement, so the position of the LIBE committee is to recommend adoption of the agreement. However, I think that everybody – or almost everybody, including those who will vote in favour today – still has a number of questions.
Firstly, I would like to say something about a new element, namely the declaration of the European Commission, which we received yesterday and which, as I see it, does not change anything: it does not contain any new elements. It is only the European Commission’s interpretation and is not binding on the US, so it does not make us change our minds. With regard to the GUE resolution proposing to submit this agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union: although I have great sympathy for it and it is very tempting, I am a Democrat and I am very reluctant to outsource political decision-making to the courts, and I think that this House should take its own responsibility.
I said there are still a couple of questions that I would like to put to the Commission. The Commission has its own interpretation of Article 4 on the purpose limitation, but I am still curious to find out – and I am sure many colleagues here would like to know – how you conclude that systematic use of the data for other purposes is explicitly excluded. Which words in Article 4 lead you to that conclusion? How do you conclude that the use of PNR data for public health purposes, immigration policies and customs is explicitly excluded, and how is the use of the data for those purposes based on Articles 82 and 87 on police and justice cooperation?
I think that much has been said about the retention periods. I would also like to ask the Commission about PUSH and PULL. You say that PULL will only be used in a very limited number of exceptional cases, but I would like to put some figures before you that we received from the Association of European Airlines. Just a few figures from 2010 and 2011 show that there are ad hoc PULLs tens of thousands of times a day. In December 2010, for example, there were 82 500 individual ad hoc PULLs a day. I would like to know: how you can conclude that that is exceptional?
Concerning judicial redress: the agreement specifically states that no rights may be derived from this agreement, either for individuals or for other legal persons. How can you come to the conclusion that there is full judicial redress for EU citizens? I realise my time is up and I would like to save the rest of my time for after the debate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples