Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-038-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120419.4.4-038-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I have the honour of chairing the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, where this matter has been the subject of detailed, careful and lengthy debate. As a result of that intense debate, there was a democratic vote expressing the will of the committee, reflected as a majority decision: 31 votes in favour of the agreement and in favour, therefore, of giving Parliament’s consent to the conclusion of the agreement and 23 against, with one abstention.
I think that that vote reflects recognition of the work done in the course of the negotiation. First of all, with a view to limiting the purpose, insofar as the other party’s original desire (which, clearly, never leads to a perfect result) to include all offences punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, has been reduced to terrorist offences, serious transnational crime and offences punishable by more than three years of imprisonment.
There is also confirmation of the principle of retention, for a fixed period of time, reducing and limiting the data retention period to five years and requiring data to be anonymised from five years onwards, except for terrorist offences, where data is retained for a period of 15 years.
Lastly, a reasonable balance has been achieved with regard to the guarantees that are offered in terms of affirming the principle of data mining (known as the PUSH system) and the non-discriminatory nature of the means of redress offered to citizens affected by the data setting system.
From that point, what we have is affirmation of the principle that Parliament has the opportunity to take part in shaping the negotiating will of the EU and, accordingly, to play a relevant part when negotiating with other global players, which is undoubtedly the case with the US.
The alternative, clearly, is to abandon the 27 Member States to bilateral negotiations and I think that people appreciate that negotiation by the EU as a whole makes us stronger, while abandoning the negotiation to the 27 Member States would make us more vulnerable.
At the same time it is acknowledged that, in practical terms, this means that citizens would be subject to the agreement that is currently in force – the 2007 agreement – which does not improve the position of EU citizens. Quite the opposite: taking them back into the 2007 agreement would worsen their position, it would reduce their safeguards rather than improving them and, accordingly, there is reasonable recognition that the agreement represents an improvement as compared with the status quo.
It introduces a uniform right of judicial redress across the whole of the EU and produces a set of legal rules that airlines, which are responsible for transporting at least 42 million Europeans who wish to travel to the US, will have to comply with, with some shared rules on legal protection, in the terms set out in this agreement going forward."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples