Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-04-Speech-1-071-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110404.15.1-071-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when I took on the task of preparing the report on the control of exports of dual-use items and technology, although I had some idea of the scope of this report, I did not realise quite how extensive it was.
This report is essentially about a practice that somehow always ends up in the shadows of reports, but which, on the other hand, safeguards jobs and, in my opinion, must be regulated throughout Europe.
It is essentially about facilitation of export licences for products that can be used for both military and civil purposes. These include everything from chemicals to nuclear fuels, weapon parts, computer components and ultimately – and we debated this very intensively – even software and software components.
In my view, it is important that the different regulations that we currently have in the Member States are brought into closer harmony, that they are made more precise, more specific and also more transparent, and, above all, that they can attain transparency at European level.
With this report, it was probably possible to see the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon for us in the European Parliament properly for the first time. The Commission originally put this proposal to the Council in the belief that the matter would perhaps be settled by the time the Treaty of Lisbon was concluded. That was not the case, however. Thus, it has also come to the European Parliament, and I think it is good that it is being debated in this House, because we see some things, which I will now come to, in a different way to the Council.
We have succeeded in overcoming certain legal complications that arose as a result of the method employed by the Commission. I would like, in particular, to thank the representatives of the Commission for the fact that we have succeeded in regulating the matter in such a way that, from a legal point of view, we are now on a safer footing. Finally, just a few key problems remain.
In this House, we are essentially in agreement on everything, with one exception, and in that regard we are not in agreement with the Council, either. It concerns the question of whether exports should be authorised after they have taken place or before they take place. In this regard, it is sensible, for reasons of safety, oversight and transparency, to ensure that someone asks first before something hazardous is exported and does not retrospectively apply for authorisation after these products have already been exported, as we will then probably not be very successful in prohibiting this export. That is the familiar ex post – ex ante debate: in my opinion, it would make more sense for authorisation to be granted first and then for the products to be exported.
Where we are all in agreement – although not with the Council – is on the subject of transparency in respect of the reporting obligation. I think that the European Parliament should ultimately be informed – how that is achieved from a technical point of view can be discussed – of what, where and how much has been authorised, because we are clearly the body that has to ensure that everything is carried out properly.
It is also important for us to discuss how we should deal with exports of devices that could possibly be used in violations of human rights. I think that such exports should not be permitted. We must ensure that that is the case. I now look forward to the debate."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples