Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.4.3-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In an area in which there is complex tension between the efficiency of a centralised European police force, the powers of the Member States, the effective framework of the Treaties and of Community law in force, and the problems of democratic control, the solution of the rapporteurs charged with evaluating the Danish and Greek initiatives on Europol is simply to urge the European Parliament to reject these initiatives and to push the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to make a maximum overall draft recommendation.
I consider this approach to be clearly misguided and to be based on dangerous and hasty premises. These are premises that take their inspiration solely from imposing a federalist ideological agenda on the attempts made by the Council, using the current institutional framework and the framework regulated by the Treaties, to make real progress in this area. Furthermore, if any subject calls for the utmost prudence and cooperation between Member States, it is precisely that of the exercise, powers and monitoring of transnational police activity. We might not like the current pillar-based structure, but, while it exists – and this is the structure that exists – this is the framework in which we must work – and work responsibly.
I have therefore rejected the rapporteur’s proposal. The best thing to do would be for Parliament to follow up the three initiatives in question, by responsibly suggesting the amendments that it has decided on, whilst complying with the legal framework...
(
)"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples