Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-04-Speech-3-325-312"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120704.25.3-325-312"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Like many of my fellow Members, I, too, was unable to vote in favour of the agreement, at least not at the present time. Unfortunately, the pragmatic course of action proposed by my group was not supported by the majority in the House and postponement of the plenary decision was rejected on feeble grounds. In my view, this is not an appropriate way to establish policies. The opportunity to create an agreement about which no doubts remain from a text with parts that are in need of clarification, and one that even I could have supported, has been blithely squandered. We should have let the Court of Justice of the European Union do its job and then – if necessary – pressed for legal clarifications. In this way, we would have been able to ensure legal certainty for all EU citizens. Thus, after many years of intensive efforts and negotiations, we are right back where we started. The arguments of most of the opponents of the agreement fluctuated between hysteria and – partly deliberate – disinformation of the general public. The scare stories often – and sometimes even when the person concerned knew better – referred to things that were never part of the agreement or that had long since been removed. We should have urgent need of such an agreement. Since the remaining points of criticism relating to the chapter on the Internet can no longer be cleared up, however, the only option left for me in the end was to abstain."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples