Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-214"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.5.3-214"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"There are two main reasons why I am opposed to the motion for a resolution drawn up on behalf of Parliament’s Temporary Committee on the Echelon interception system.
On the one hand, the proposal for a covenant between the European Union and the United States hardly seems relevant for, however good the intentions, it would most likely have no practical effect. At the same time, if, as its supporters say, Echelon can act as an effective multilateral instrument in the fight against organised crime, terrorism, drugs and arms trafficking and money laundering, then it is not a covenant of mutual good intentions that we need to sign with the United States. What we need to negotiate is the means of enabling every state that wishes to be involved in active international cooperation in these essential areas to join the Echelon system, which would thus become an open system.
On the other hand, the motion for a resolution is used as a pretext to address a whole range of questions that have no bearing whatsoever on the temporary committee’s real task. In the midst of this hotchpotch we come across paragraph 5, which reflects the federalist obsession with seeing the next IGC make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, so that it can constitute a legal basis for appeal, as though the existing protection guaranteed both by national constitutions and by the universal and European declarations on human rights were null and void. This really is a distortion of the debate on Echelon that cannot be accepted."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples