Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-15-Speech-3-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030115.7.3-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Whereas the Commission, in its communication of 7 May 2002, aimed to lead the Member States in the unrealistic direction of supranational, or so-called ‘integrated’ management of external borders, the governments have brought it back to reality by adopting a ‘plan for the management of the external borders’ containing useful practical measures such as exchange of positive experience, operational coordination, continuous common training, compatible equipment, common risk analysis, amongst others. The European Parliament’s Pirker report is more along these lines, and we also agree, as we have already said at the Seville European Council in June 2002.
The report, however – and this is the reason behind our abstention from the vote – regrets the fact that the Council challenged the idea of an ‘integrated’ European border-control body. This ‘supranationalisation’ of external border control would in fact be highly counterproductive, as it would take responsibility away from the Member States. It is vital for each Member State to remain in control of its borders.
It would be useful, however, for the Member States that, by virtue of their geographical position, bear significant costs in this regard, which benefit their neighbours in the Union, to receive appropriate technical and financial support from these neighbours. This would be a useful outlet for European solidarity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples