Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-16-Speech-4-275"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000316.10.4-275"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Spanish delegation to the Group of the European People’s Party to explain why we abstained in the vote. Abstention does not normally mean taking a clear position but in this case it does.
We abstained because, on the one hand, we support the symbolism and principles of the fight against racism and xenophobia, and some of the points in this report contain important statements, for example, paragraph 8, on the functions of the European Racism and Xenophobia Information Network and paragraph 24, which invites the Member States to prioritise some very specific issues in this fight, to mention only two.
But, on the other hand, by contrast with the Haarder report which we voted for this morning, this report is long on radical demagoguery and short on legal rigour. Now this Parliament, as co-legislator, should know that any statement it makes has either legal value or, as in this case, quasi-legal value, and that is why greater care must be taken. Let me give you just one example of this: paragraph 22, which seeks to give substance to European citizenship, by granting rights to vote in European and local elections to third country nationals resident in the Community.
That obviously violates the Treaty right away. It is badly drafted. And I could give further examples of this kind of thing to justify our abstention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples