Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-050-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-04-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU-USA agreement on the use and transfer of PNR to the US Department of Homeland Security (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"mt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120419.4.4-050-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-04-19-Speech-4-051-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Simon Busuttil2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-14--2013-04-05)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2013-04-05)3 unknown; Partit Nazzjonalista (2009-07-14--2013-04-05)3 member; Delegation for relations with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo (2009-09-16--2013-04-05)3 member; CRIM (2012-03-28--2013-04-05)3 member; PETI (2012-01-19--2013-04-05)3 substitute; IMCO (2012-01-19--2013-04-05)3 substitute; Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (2009-09-16--2013-04-05)3 member; LIBE (2012-01-19--2013-04-05)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the crux of the matter when casting our vote is this: we have to reply to the question, ‘does this agreement strike a fair balance between two equally important objectives that all of us hold dear?’ – that is to say, the protection of our citizens’ security and the protection of their privacy. It is in this context that we need to judge this agreement today before we are able to say yes or no to it. My reply to this question is: yes, I think we have struck a fair balance with this agreement, even though I am the first to concede that it does not quite live up to our high expectations on data protection and does not constitute the major breakthrough that we wanted. There are three reasons why I think we should support this agreement, most of which have already been mentioned. First of all, having this agreement is better than not having it at all, both for security reasons and for the privacy of our citizens. The agreement provides a better data protection framework than the existing agreement of 2007 and, possibly, a better one than the bilateral agreements that we would have had to live with if we did not have it. Also, without the agreement, data would continue to flow, but without any safeguards. Secondly, we have to admit that the United States has the right to request all the data it wants from the people who want to travel there. So we are doing everything in our power to secure their privacy when they choose to do so. In practice, without this agreement, we could end up with obstacles to flight traffic, extremely long waiting times for flight passengers and weaker safeguards concerning data protection and privacy. Lastly, yes, there is no doubt that the processing of PNR data helps the security of our citizens. It should not be taboo in this House to say that protecting the security of our citizens is equally important. So, yes, it is far from perfect, but on balance our citizens are better off with it."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"1 "Simon Busuttil (PPE ). -"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