Criticism of Rapporteur Alvaro

From Drcampaign

Exerpts from the Greens/EFA Hearing 2005-12-07:

Alexander ALVARO, ALDE

   ... But, to make it quite short: they ripped us off.  I mean, that's
   it. Because, as you already said, there is now... Okay, I must admit: I don't
   agree 100 percent that we saw all the points which have been mentioned, because
   some things are a little bit different and it is in the end not sure that you
   will have every bit of location data, every cell ID which you move in or
   whatever. But I think we are beyond the stage at a certain point, because,
   as Kathelijne said, there has been an agreement between the PPE and the PSE,
   which, we all know, have - if they would have all their people in the plenary -
   468. We need approximately 370 for some amendments, so technically, and just
   by arithmetics, I know where I am standing. But, the point is: they have both
   agreed on - I mean, Council delivered something which they call "Well, this is
   our text, this is what we want. And this is what you take or we won't have a
   deal." By some convincing arguments which I don't understand and I don't know,
   Mr. Pöttering and Mr. Schulz were very convinced by what Charles Clark said.
   I wasn't attending that meeting, I wasn't there, I don't know what he offered
   and what he said. But it must have been very convincing, because now, both two
   groups are willing to amend the Commission's directive 100% the way that
   Council demands it, from the text we have, i.e. the version of 2 December.
   And I must admit: I don't understand at all, why. Because, if you have the
   text, the original framework decision which Council once proposed, from the
   18th April last year, and you put beside the text they now put as a compromise
   text: where is the development? Where have they changed?
   ...
   But since it's on the track, it was my job to see we make it as proportionate as possible, and it's
   not very easy if you have quite a thorough majority against yourself. But now,
   immediately after committee decided, immediately after Parliament made a
   position on this, the two big groups came in and said "Okay, we're going to
   compromise on this and this and this, and we're going to compromise on that, and
   then we're going to present it to Council", which was politically, in my
   point of view, one of the biggest mistakes you could ever make. I mean, it was
   a beginner's mistake. Saying, like, before I even know what Council wants, I
   am going to step back from my compromise and give a new compromise. I mean, it's
   like in a bazaar: I say 5 euro's, I don't even know if the guy would say 7,
   but I say 8. Okay? No problem. And that is what I don't understand on that point.
   But anyway, now we are facing the situation: we are doing our work trying to
   change majorities, but again to be realistic, you need 370, roundabout, if you
   would estimate that all 732 of us are in the house. Which means: your group,
   maybe a lot of people out of my group, maybe the GUE/NGL

Daniel COHN BENDIT (9:15 - 9:34)

   What I want know. Who made the compromise? The people of
   the Libe committee of the two groups or were it the 
   presidents of the two groups. This I did'nt understood.
   Because there were talks between Schulz and Pöttering
   (intervention) while both not in the Libel Committee
   So I want to know how it works.

Alexander ALVARO (9:35 - 9:45)

   Ah, okay. Well, in general, I just suppose, because I was not attending, it was
   not within the LIBE committee. That was not there. I suppose, because I know it
   was Schulze and Poettering ...

Daniel COHN BENDIT (9:47 - )

   ... proposition in the LIBE committee? (alvaro: No) As whom they went to the Council? As what?

Alexander ALVARO (9:53 - )

   No,Council. Council approached them as group leaders. Saying "you're the group leader
   of one big group, and you're the group leader of another big group". And
   Council also knows how it goes. So, they said "Okay this is what we want",
   and as I said, I don't know what happened, because I was not attending. But
   suddenly, both said "okay, we're going to go in that direction" and then they
   informed the coordinators of the LIBE committee, Mrs. Clampte (?) and Mrs.
   Wool (?) "Go down that road". And that was sort of, like, 5 or 4 people's
   agreement, I don't know how. I just was informed as a rapporteur by e-mail
   on Wednesday saying "We would like to inform you that we had a compromise on
   this and this and this." I said "Okay, very nice". But no, it was Schulz and
   Poettering. And in fact, I mean, we are losing such a piece of credibility.
   I don't know why everybody was going "Oh cool, we got codecision procedure
   ...". It is an article 95 proposal: it's a directive. Of course it is
   codecision! It's nothing you really, like, fight for, you win, or whatever:
   it is legally the right way to do it. It is nothing what we call a victory.

[Full transscription (http://wiki.ffii.org/DataRetentionGreenConf051207En)]