Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-320"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.19.3-320"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Frattini, it is always good to see you. I would first like to say something about the procedure, and then move on to the content. The procedure is extremely vague. We in this House have been asked to assess a proposal which, technically speaking, does not yet exist. Indeed, the Council has tabled a proposal on the retention of traffic data, but this is still being drafted and it is not clear what the proposal will ultimately stipulate.
In the first pillar, a ban on data retention has been agreed upon before and it is abundantly clear that some governments have tabled this proposal only because they cannot get it past their own parliaments. That is how the Council takes advantage of the democratic hole in the European Union, because as you know, this House only has an advisory role in this respect. I heard a moment ago that you are in agreement with us, or at least that is what I inferred from what you said. I should like to spell out once again, though, that the European Union is not designed for whitewashing failed national proposals.
As for content, it is for this House to decide whether or not the final proposal is proportionate. We must assess how proportionate this limitation of communication secrecy is in terms of how much this limitation is needed. How can we assess a proposal’s proportionality if its content is still unclear and proof that it is needed has never been given?
You said a moment ago that, if the Commission were to table a proposal on this, you would weigh up the economic consequences of such a proposal. That is, in all honesty, a little too fast for my liking. I would first like to see proof for such a proposal. In other words, why is it necessary? It has never been proven that it is. Dutch research has shown the reverse, if anything. The Dutch Government had kept that research secret, but our Government Information (Public Access) Act eventually obliged it to come clean.
I would now like to make a general comment on terrorism. As I stand here, I do not feel terribly comfortable, because I have the feeling that I am giving up the fight against terrorism. I think it is an important fight, and also think it is a disgrace that the European Council should put this House in a position where we have to stand on the brakes where proposals intended to fight terrorism are concerned. To do so is to take advantage of our position. I would like to discuss what we should coordinate at European level and I would like to do this in a democratic manner."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples