Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-074-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-04-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU-USA agreement on the use and transfer of PNR to the US Department of Homeland Security (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120419.4.4-074-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-04-19-Speech-4-075-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Sylvie Guillaume2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-17--2014-06-30)3 substitute; FEMM (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; S&D (2012-01-19--2012-06-06)3 substitute; AFCO (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I would first of all like to emphasise two considerations that I think it is important to reiterate at the outset. Firstly, we are not hostile to passenger name records (PNR) in general and, more broadly, the fight against terrorism remains one of our major concerns. Having given this preamble, I would like to say that, while we can acknowledge that a compromise is the result of concessions on both sides and is therefore imperfect, it should nevertheless not be made at the expense of one party. Here, however, the dominant impression is that the European Commission has not done well enough. At this stage, the arguments that have been advanced are not currently convincing us all to vote for this agreement. Although progress has been made, it is far from enough, and it does not in any way address the concerns expressed in May and November 2010 by this Parliament: a lack of respect for the rule of necessity and the principle of proportionality, an insufficiently precise objective, an excessively long retention period, an excessively broad scope of application and limited legal recourse. In short, we have a very long list of reservations. This is an unfortunate situation because this agreement should have provided the opportunity to ensure that high data protection standards prevail, as behoves the European Union. I am also having trouble grasping the logic of the statement that the Commission is proposing to us. We are now promised that Parliament will be regularly and fully informed. That is great. We are also told that, if Parliament identifies deficiencies in this agreement and calls for it to be suspended, the Commission is committed to giving the fullest consideration to such a request. That is also great. It seems to me paradoxical, however, to hammer it home for several months that the agreement is not negotiable and then to assure us that the Commission will be able to negotiate it. This is a very uncertain bet. I will vote against this agreement."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph