Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-608-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Revision of the current data retention framework (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20121023.48.2-608-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-10-23-Speech-2-609-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Sophia in 't Veld2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2009-07-20--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Democraten 66 (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ECON (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; LIBE (2012-01-23--2014-06-30)3 member; FEMM (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	". – Mr President, this Directive has been wrong from the very start. Let us go back in history and recall that the only reason that this House got to vote on the proposal for data retention was that the Member States could not agree. They had no unanimity, remember? There were many Member States which did not want this. That is why we got to vote on it, that was the only reason. Until today they have been trying to avoid parliamentary intervention. Secondly, does it serve a purpose? Is it useful? Have we become safer since 2005 and 2006? Despite the fact that the evaluation only came through after a long delay, there is not a shred of evidence – not a shred – that it contributes to our safety. All the statements about the necessity of this directive are based on assumptions and nothing else. We have yet to see any figures. Does it serve the purpose of harmonisation? Some colleagues have pointed out that it does not. It does not. It was not meant to from the start, because the Member States chose to compensate, or not, companies for the costs that they incurred. It was then deemed a violation of the constitution in many countries. Some colleagues may argue about this, but it is a technical point: only the implementation law was deemed unconstitutional. It seems almost impossible to find a way to implement it in a way that is reconcilable with the constitution. In my own country, a report showed that there is widespread abuse and that data are being consulted much more often by many more people than is allowed. Does anybody take action? No. So here is a law that was pushed through, that does not serve a purpose, that seems to be a violation of the constitution and of which there is widespread abuse. So of course the Commission and the Member States say ‘great law, let’s have more of it’. I say to the Commissioner: we should not wait for a review. It should be repealed today."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Sophia in 't Veld,"1 "on behalf of the ALDE Group"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