6 Amendments of Terry REINTKE related to 2020/2023(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern about the progress of negotiations, including the cancellation of two negotiation rounds planned during the COVID-19 confinement period as well as the resumption thereof as of 20 April; notes, that, according to the information received from the European Commission’s Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom, despite a first exchange on the issues of security, law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, data protection and citizens’ rights, as well as irregular migration and asylum, that took place during the second round of the negotiations, no significant progress has been achieved; recalls that, pursuant to Article 132 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the transition period may be extended by a single decision of the Joint Committee before 1 July 2020; takes into account that the UK government, during the second negotiation round, stressed its intention not to request an extension of the transition period; is deeply concerned about the chances of finalising negotiations on all the essential matters at stake by the end of the year, in view, notably, of the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the slow progress achieved so far; calls on the negotiating partners to make every effort to advance on all areas of the negotiations in parallel, including the most difficult areas, and to adopt a comprehensive negotiating strategy;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers it necessary to pay particular attention to the legal framework in the UK in the fields of national security or processing of personal data by law enforcement authorities; recalls that mass surveillance programmes mightare not be adequate under EU law; advocates taking into consideration CJEU case law in this field, such as the Schrems case as well as ECtHR case law;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out that the automated exchange of DNA data with UK under the Prüm Framework was launched only in 2019 and that the Council is about to adoptdecide upon the adoption of an implementing decision which would allow the UK to take part in automated exchanges of dactyloscopic data; points out in this regard that under the special consultation procedure for the ex-third pillar acts on 13 May 2020 the Parliament rejected the Council’s draft decision due to concerns over full reciprocity for fingerprint data exchange, over data protection guarantees, as well as over the very short time of its application; reminds the negotiators that, if adopted, the Council decisions authorising these automated data exchanges will expire at the end of the transition period; stresses the need for a timely agreement on new arrangements for the future relationship, given the importance of information exchange in the fight against serious and organised cross- border crime and terrorism; considers that the future relationship should not be predetermined by the rules applied during the transition period; believes that the agreement should be based on the principle of full reciprocity; strongly urges the UK, therefore, to reconsider its position not to disclose data of suspected persons, failing which, exchanges under Prüm between the EU and the UK will have to remain limited;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Subheading F
Subheading F
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses the need to agree the terms of cooperation on the irregular migration of nationals other than those of the two parties, recognising the need to protect the most vulnerable; reiterates its call that such cooperation should, at the very least, contain arrangements that enhance safe and legal pathways to access international protection, including through family reunification;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the need for strong cooperation between the parties in order to combat human smuggling and trafficking in human beings, in line with international law, which will remain applicable to the border between the UK and the EU; calls on the negotiating parties to clarify the potential role Europol and the European Border and Coast Guard could have in enabling such cooperation;