Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-08-Speech-3-096"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-09-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Ongoing negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100908.5.3-096"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-09-08-Speech-3-0972
lpv:speaker	lp:Eva Lichtenberger2
lpv:spokenAs	member; TRAN (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; G/EFA (2009-07-14--2011-12-12)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Die Grünen - Die Grüne Alternative (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; JURI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr De Gucht, you have assured us that this Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) will not currently change anything. However, we are not being given the opportunity to form our own opinions, to gain our own insights and to apply our own legal expertise in order to determine whether the collateral damage to citizens’ rights in Europe resulting from this agreement will not be significantly greater than you are claiming. We have to take your word for this. Given that this is the case, why is there no transparency? I know that this comes from the US negotiators, but can the European Commission, in all conscience, simply give in? I think that the answer to this question is no. My second point concerns geographic designations of origin. I would have made it clear around the negotiating table that these designations of origin are the equivalent of trademarks in Europe. In my opinion, this point must be raised again in the negotiations."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph