Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-14-Speech-3-317-875"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111214.22.3-317-875"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I would have preferred voting and approving the in ’t Veld report adopted in the Committee on Civil Liberties last July, which had stronger wording. Unfortunately, we have been forced to express our vote first on an alternative motion for resolution (AMR) that looked to be the only possible positive compromise. The AMR nevertheless proposes a strict evaluation of the EU counter-terrorism policies; it insists on strengthening civil liberties, providing clear guidelines as to how to ensure counter-terrorism policies are proportional, necessary and efficient and bound by an objective and transparent evaluation process, and stresses that prevention, investigation and prosecution should be based on the judicial and police cooperation coupled with full parliamentary scrutiny and completion of the road map for uniform procedural guarantees: i.e. the only answer to terrorism can be more rule of law and democracy. For these reasons, I have voted in favour of the AMR despite the reference to the definition of ‘terrorism’ as it is formulated in the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA, which we have always opposed as a group and that has been introduced against our will. The substantially positive elements of the AMR undoubtedly outweighed the few negative references."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL ),"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples