Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-05-Speech-3-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070905.2.3-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, terrorism is a clear evil – it strikes at the life and health of citizens and conveys a threat to nations by cutting at the foundations of their democratic functioning; so far, however, the terrorists have stayed ahead of the game, striking without warning and sadly often succeeding. It is only after such attacks that we undertake counter-measures, and thus we are acting
. The examples of Denmark and Germany cited today by the Commissioner are commendable exceptions to this. Congratulations to their services, but these were national actions, and my question to the Commissioner is this: what about prevention at European level? Do we have a system of exchanging good practice in combating terrorism, and how does it work?
The European Union is adopting new anti-terrorism measures and setting up specialist institutions: we now have Europol and Eurojust, we have the Union’s Situation Centre, SitCen, but do they cooperate effectively with each other, and more particularly, do they exchange information? In this context, in the context of institutions, I have a further question for the Commissioner: in your opinion, would Frontex, the institution responsible for guarding the Union’s frontiers, not be better utilised and involved in the anti-terrorism strategy? I also have the impression that the delay in introducing SIS II is seriously weakening this strategy. It appears that Schengen II is important not only to the citizens of the new states, but also, in the context of the war on terror, to the security of the Union as a whole."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples