Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-03-Speech-2-474-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-07-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120703.21.2-474-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-07-03-Speech-2-475-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Charles Goerens2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-17--2014-06-30)3 member; DROI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; AFET (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Parti démocratique (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; DEVE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; CRIM (2012-03-28--2013-10-23)3 substitute; BUDG (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2009-07-20--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I am still convinced that the European Union would have been wise to negotiate an interpretative protocol in response to the questions and concerns that were raised as a result of the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). I suggested that. Yet nothing was done. Everyone would have benefited from this. Those who, for reasons of legal certainty, will vote in favour of a joint interpretation would have had the advantage of shedding light on the ambiguities decried by ACTA’s detractors. Those who will vote against the agreement, myself included, would have had the advantage of being able to make a fresh start on clearer concepts in the case of renegotiation. In all cases, an interpretative protocol would have bought us time. Now, we will have to start again from scratch with the hypothesis that we can unite the critical mass for a new start in the fight against counterfeiting. Another lesson to be learned from this episode is that it is important from now on to involve Parliament in the definition of the negotiating mandate for any new treaty or international agreement. This would mean that Parliament, which, need I remind you, has the final say on this kind of agreement, could take responsibility from the beginning."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"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