Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-05-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070905.2.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, if we go back just over 2 000 years, we will recall that in the autumn of 68 bc the world’s only superpower suffered a terrorist attack by a band of loosely organised pirates, and in panic the Roman Senate granted Pompey, at least according to Plutarch, ‘absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone’ through the
. By the oldest trick in the book, the military subverted liberty, democracy and the constitution with the assent of Rome’s frightened citizens, and it took 1 800 years for mature democracy to resurface in Europe.
We are now on to the third and final PNR agreement, for example, an agreement which in perpetuity gives up certain rights for uncertain benefits. My Group questions whether security really demands that the United States Government knows our dietary preferences.
Commissioner Frattini, you tell us that 85% of citizens are strongly in favour of European action. Mr Lobo Antunes, you tell us that the Presidency has no doubt that its measures are supported by citizens. Have the two of you not passed through an airport this summer? Have you not heard the young women asking why their lipstick has to be confiscated before they board an aeroplane? Have you not heard the old ladies cry out in frustration when their toenail scissors are taken away? Have you not listened to the people infuriated at how anti-terror laws are being exploited for commercial gain? My local airport now charges people 50 pence for a plastic bag into which travellers have to put their toothpaste. Constituents have written to me about how much is being charged for bottled water air-side of the security controls.
The
was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences because it fatally subverted the institutions it was supposed to protect. I hope that Europe’s anti-terror laws will not end up doing the same.
Karl Popper once said, ‘We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than only freedom can make security secure’.
Now, once again, laws that take away our freedoms risk entering by the back door. I welcome the oral questions that colleagues have tabled today, with their very specific questions to Council and Commission.
I do not argue that counter-terrorism laws are unnecessary. The arrest yesterday of three people in Germany and the arrest this morning of another three in Denmark show the continuing threat that terrorists pose to our society. My Group is united in its belief that we need more judicial cooperation to make Europol and Eurojust as effective as possible.
We backed the European Arrest Warrant to the hilt, trusting the Council to put minimum procedural guarantees in place. We would support a European FBI. Liberals and Democrats are not soft on crime. Indeed, we are astonished at the failure of Europe’s right-wing-dominated Council to find a coherent approach to a matter of law and order. What we are saying, however, is that laws must be proportionate to threats.
And indeed, if the threat is so great, why has the Council not moved to replace its anti-terrorism coordinator since the last one left in March?
Mr President-in-Office, you have told us that you are ‘reflecting on the best way of ensuring cooperation’. Well, the terrorists have had six months while you have been reflecting. You tell us that ‘the United States has the leading role in counter-terrorism’. We want the European Union to set its own policy. You tell us that the European Parliament has, and I quote, ‘a primordial role’, but that primordial role turns out to be a courtesy meeting once every six months with the chairman of our committee.
I welcome Commissioner Frattini’s agreement today to evaluate with Parliament the effectiveness of European Union policy, and I hope the Council Presidency will come along with him for that debate.
Since 9/11, we have had a counter-terrorism strategy, an action plan, a framework decision and several cooperation initiatives. None of these has been thoroughly and openly evaluated, let alone by Europe’s democratic institutions. The Council and the Commission should involve Parliament in a comprehensive review of all the measures adopted thus far.
Here in Parliament, we should be insisting on sunset clauses for anti-terror laws so that legislation susceptible to abuse does not remain on the statute books any longer than necessary."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Lex Gabinia"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples