Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.10.3-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, since the vote in committee we have attempted to reach a compromise with the Council on the contentious points. We all wanted to avoid a conciliation procedure, but not – let me make this quite clear now – at any price! Mrs Paciotti made things very simple from the outset and specifically stated that she would support all the points that the Council accepted. That really is a strange position for a Member of Parliament to adopt! Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi then tabled certain proposals for compromise with the Council on behalf of our group, and we have negotiated on that package in countless meetings and discussions also involving the Presidency. The Council has of course, as always, now very cleverly unpicked our package for tactical reasons and negotiated all the proposals for compromise individually with the various interested parties. That means that for the time being we have accepted a compromise on data retention under which there can be standard legal deviations from the general European legislation at national level, rather than having decisions made on a case-by-case basis. We have also abandoned the idea of a time limit and have therefore almost totally accepted the Council's position.
In the case of
mail advertising, despite having major reservations we have agreed to the general opt-in. However, I regarded it as being a condition that the area of application should be broad if there is already contact between interested parties and companies. But instead we now have a very limited wording: companies can only advertise similar products and products already inquired about by customers. The area of application we suggested has also had the word 'cooperations' taken out.
I could have accepted all these restrictions as a compromise, and could also accept this if the Council had made some concessions to us on the final issue and had really accepted the opt-out position for directories of subscribers. However, in this case the Council was only willing to agree on a variant in which the decision is left to the Member States. However, that means that the Council would not even have remotely accepted any of Parliament's key points. I scarcely regard that as acceptable, and that is why I repeat that I wish to avoid the reconciliation procedure, but not at any cost! If the Council wants to play poker on this, we can play that game too, and for us that means remaining resolute and supporting Mr Cappato's Amendment No 14. Otherwise we will essentially only have lost ground during the unofficial negotiations, and not gained anything at all."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples