Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-29-Speech-4-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011129.2.4-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Our groups are not very happy with the proposal by European Commissioner Vitorino on a European arrest warrant, although the amendments adopted by the European Parliament (Watson report) do constitute a major improvement on the Commission proposal. However, our main concern, to protect liberal, Dutch criminal law by applying the European arrest warrant only to a limited list of so-called euro crimes, has not yet been accommodated.
We are in favour of a European arrest warrant in order to combat terrorism and organised crime more effectively, but only under the following conditions: firstly, that European arrests are only carried out on the basis of a positive list of euro crimes, and secondly, that the list of euro crimes is limited to serious offences which are punishable in all European countries, such as murder, for example.
Under no circumstances must the European arrest warrant jeopardise Dutch practice on abortion, euthanasia and drugs.
Insofar as we can make out from the little information that is available to us from the Council of Ministers, the latter is already discussing a positive list, and this list appears to contain no less than 27 broadly-defined euro crimes so far. Consequently, the Council is now discussing a substantially different proposal from that of the Commission. By studying the original Commission proposal, Parliament is lagging behind. Furthermore, it very much looks as if the Dutch government is able to remove more of our objections via the Council than we are via the European Parliament.
This issue once again exposes the EU’s democratic loophole. Inspection by the Lower Chamber is theoretically possible because the Council takes unanimous decisions. However, this is difficult to realise in practice on account of the Council’s reluctance to embrace openness and due to the late availability of the documents. The pace at which this sensitive issue is being discussed only exacerbates the problem.
For all these reasons, our groups will vote in favour of the amendments of the Watson report, because these are a considerable improvement on the Commission proposal, but we will abstain in the vote on the legislative resolution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples