Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-330-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20121023.18.2-330-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-10-23-Speech-2-331-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Daniel Caspary2
lpv:spokenAs	member; INTA (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-24--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Cariforum — EU Parliamentary Committee (2010-06-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ITRE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; PETI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to follow on from where Commissioner De Gucht left off. It must be in all our interests to have an effective control system to determine whether the wrong items are being exported from the European Union. However, we should also be clear about what this specific regulation is intended to achieve. It deals with items that are primarily used for civilian purposes: items which, fundamentally, are civilian in nature, such as computer keyboards, office chairs, and replacement parts for machinery and vehicles, all of which, in essence, are designed for use in non-military contexts. The main point of contention between us this evening, notwithstanding the large measure of agreement on this issue, is the question of ex ante or ex post notification of an export. I would ask Members to give some further thought to what this draft regulation actually says. The point at issue in our discussion is this. Provided that the item and the country appear on the relevant lists, an exporter who is subject to this regulation would be legally authorised, under this regulation, to export his product. The only point at issue between us is whether, as a general principle and for statistical reasons, he should be required to provide notification of this export ex post or ex ante. The issue of ex post or ex ante does not relate to whether or not the product may be exported. It can be exported provided that the country and the product appear on the lists. The point is whether, with our export control regime, we are putting European countries at what I would regard as an unnecessary disadvantage in relation to their competitors. So I would ask fellow Members from the other groups to consider whether this is really what we want. In essence, we agree: we must create a more effective export control regime in the EU, and we need to be able to respond more quickly. That is why I fully support the Commission’s proposal. I also endorse the comments made by the rapporteur, namely that the lists must be updated as quickly as possible by the Commission so that we no longer have the untenable situation that we had in the past but instead have effective export controls."@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