European Parliament rejects plans to hand bank details to the US

Sharing of bank records with the US started in 2001 in an effort to tackle terrorism. However, the European Parliament has rejected new proposed agreement after heated criticisms that too much private information could be handed over without good reason.

The Register reported:

The European Parliament has rejected a proposed interim agreement on SWIFT – under which the US gets access to European bank transactions…

Rapporteur Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert from the Netherlands said the Council had not been tough enough on data protection and rules in the interim agreement on data protection were not proportionate to the security supposedly provided.

London Lib Dem MEP Sarah Ludford has been a vocal critic of the proposed agreement:

Major data protection weaknesses in the accord – such as the volume of information transferred, length of storage time, potential transfer to other agencies and third countries, and lack of rights to be informed or compensated for wrongful use – make it a bad deal for EU citizens.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Europe / International.


  • Malcolm Todd 17th Feb '10 - 9:43am

    Wow. A story involving the European Parliament that’s neither yawn-inducing nor deeply dispiriting. Two questions, however, in the spirit of genuine enquiry, though no doubt stoked by the growing cynicism of my own medieval warm period:

    1. Given the existence of an agreement on this since 2001, does this decision make more than a dime of difference?

    2. Given that I haven’t yet fully mastered the detailed constitutional implications of the Lisbon Treaty – does the Parliament have a genuine veto in this case?

  • Malcolm Todd 17th Feb '10 - 4:16pm

    Thanks, Niklas.

    I get the impression that there’s a sort of weak collective responsibility doctrine surrounding the Commission – they are supposed to function as a collective executive body rather than as delegates or representatives of their states (which is what makes it so horribly undemocratic). Of course. ‘collective responsibility’ in government is a constitutional convention rather than a legal or administrative rule – which doesn’t stop anyone from hiding behind it.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • David Sheppard
    Well said Ed I’m proud of you for that thank you!...
  • James Fowler
    Mark Valladares. You're right to point out that there are benefits from WFH, and where there is no harm done, then why shouldn't people do it. However, I th...
  • David Raw
    Meanwhile, did wee Alex C.-H. and the Scottish Lib Dem hierarchy notice what happened at Celtic Park in Glasgow today ? Full house watching Celtic beat Hunga...
  • Neil Sandison
    Sad to see Michael Meadowcroft still fighting the tribal battles of the 1980s pre merger . We have all moved on . indeed the public demands we move on ,There i...
  • Paul WalterPaul Walter
    LDV team note: Apologies for the non-working link, which has now been corrected....