Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-04-Speech-4-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011004.3.4-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
It cannot be repeated often enough that we support the fight against international terrorism and we approve of taking initiatives to freeze funds if it can be shown that they belong to, or come from, individuals or organisations that carry out acts of terrorism. We recognise the need to react quickly but believe, at the same time, that thorough reflection is important. The proposal for a regulation is an expression of the fact that the EU is in a position to take action, but not to reflect. If we are not voting against Parliament’s approval of the initiative, it is for the following reasons.
First of all, we do not believe that Parliament should be consulted on this issue, on which it has no influence. We think it is completely unacceptable that Parliament should take a view on a regulation proposed by the Commission on the basis of the paper before us, which has been presented in a hurry and which Coreper criticises for lack of cohesion and consistency. We believe that the procedure whereby Parliament is asked to approve the hasty adoption of the Council proposal is being used by the Council to legitimise a regulation on which thorough work has not been done.
The list attached to the proposal in Annex 1 is of organisations and individuals suspected of being directly or indirectly involved in acts of terrorism. In our view, the fact that a list prepared in the United States has been approved without hesitation is a matter for criticism. The proposal contains no guidelines as to how, or in accordance with which criteria, individuals or organisations are to be added to, or crossed off, the list, and it has not been specified which authorities are authorised to draw up the list and according to what principles.
We would criticise the fact that the proposal invalidates fundamental principles of a society governed by law, principles that protect those who have been accused against unfair and unlawful treatment. It is a fact beneath contempt that the traditional, threefold division of power into legislative, judicial and executive authorities has been invalidated so that the EU can comply with the United States’ desire for rapid intervention. At the same time, it must be emphasised that no infringement of these principles can justify acts of terrorism."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples