Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-15-Speech-2-249"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-12-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Improvement needed in the legal framework for access to documents following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20091215.16.2-249"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-12-15-Speech-2-2502
lpv:speaker	lp:Renate Sommer2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ENVI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we had agreed with the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups to submit an oral question about the status of the procedure and the next steps. On the basis of the response from the Council and the Commission, we planned to discuss how to proceed. We have just received this response in principle. It is not entirely clear to me why the rapporteur, contrary to the agreement between the groups, suddenly submitted a resolution in which he anticipated his own point of view. What answer does he want from the Commission and the Council? Mr Cashman, I hold you in great esteem, but all of this happened quietly and secretly, with a complete lack of transparency. So much for your claim to be fighting for transparency. You have tried to bypass us. In addition, I believe that the legitimacy of this resolution is highly questionable under the terms of the Rules of Procedure. In any case, the content of the resolution is a repeat of your existing report from the last parliamentary term and, therefore, is completely superfluous. I know that you tried to negotiate with the shadow rapporteurs to introduce a joint resolution, but I am fundamentally opposed to this resolution. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has not, in my opinion, brought about such a change in the legal basis of the dossier that it has resulted in a change in the role of the European Parliament. The report was and is a dossier in the codecision procedure. This also explains the concerns of my group about the legitimacy of a resolution under the terms of the Rules of Procedure. I do not want to discuss the content. You bring together a lot of different things, including quotations from the Treaty on European Union, from the Treaty of Lisbon and from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, all taken out of context, in order to legitimise your motion for a resolution. It is certainly not legally tenable in the absolute form in which it is presented. You have not made a commitment to confidentiality, which is clearly necessary at least to a certain extent. This is required, for example, in the context of international agreements by third parties as a . You only need to think about the agreement with the US on SWIFT. There is also no mediation solution, for example, in the form of ex-post transparency. You fail to provide this. In addition, other legally protected rights, such as data protection or the right to privacy, are disregarded. We should not adopt this resolution. We have received a good response from the Commission and the Council and we should continue on this basis, in other words, the response to our oral question. I would ask you, Mr Cashman, to withdraw your motion for a resolution."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"conditio sine qua non"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