Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-16-Speech-3-138"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091216.10.3-138"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The common sense behind the questions that have been asked 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 be important in this context as well?
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, 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."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples