Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-15-Speech-2-224"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-12-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Restrictive measures affecting the rights of individuals following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20091215.15.2-224"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-12-15-Speech-2-2252
lpv:speaker	lp:Nuno Melo2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries (2009-09-30--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; DROI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Partido Popular (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"The strengthening of Parliament’s powers has been a keynote in a number of politicians’ speeches on the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The President of the Commission, Dr Barroso, for example, said the following here in Strasbourg on 25 November, on the preparation of the European Council: ‘Now the Lisbon Treaty gives us a new opportunity to move ahead. We all know that freedom, security and justice will see some of the most significant changes from the treaty. [...] And, in particular, it extends the democratic framework for these policies by the full involvement of your Parliament.’ I would emphasise ‘the full involvement of your Parliament.’ In his first official speech, the President of the Council, Mr Van Rompuy, also said that the treaty was a powerful tool with which we can face the challenges of our times. If that is the case, then, it would make no sense to highlight the strengthening of our powers and competences in official discourse and then to adopt a restrictive interpretation of the Treaty of Lisbon, so as to deprive Parliament of prerogatives that it used to have and which it would make no sense to lose. The questions that have been asked are, therefore, based on common sense, but this common sense goes beyond a mere evaluation of doctrine and the consistency between declared intentions and their interpretation. There is also a practical consequence, which arises from the old saying that he who can do the greater can certainly do the lesser, and it concerns the following: what sense is there for a body that has competence in criminal matters and in preventing and combating terrorist attacks, through being involved in a codecision process, to be subsequently excluded when other measures are at stake which, by affecting citizens’ rights, may even also be important in this context? Therefore – I am finishing, Mr President – it is fundamentally important that the way the Treaty of Lisbon is interpreted in legislation corresponds in reality to the stated strengthening of Parliament’s powers and competences. At the very least, in some cases, as was raised in the question, it should be possible to have a dual legal basis when the rights of citizens are at stake and anti-terrorism policies are threatened. In other cases, such as Zimbabwe and Somalia, for example, optional consultation should be envisaged, as in fact is enshrined in the Stuttgart Declaration on the European Union, which was also mentioned in the question. That is the position that I wanted to set out here, Mr President."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"a priori"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph