Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.5.2-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I voted in favour of this report for two main reasons. On the one hand, I acknowledge the clear need to promote the harmonisation of the divergent legislation in this field, an essential requirement for making the Schengen acquis intelligible and accessible. I would emphasise, however, that even were this not the case, I do not see the slightest problem in there existing differences between national legislations on migratory phenomena. On the contrary, I feel that any artificial attempt to standardise, exceeding the provisions of Article 63(3)(a) of the EC Treaty, would be counterproductive. Furthermore, I also share the rapporteur’s conviction about the importance of controlling external borders as a means of combating illegal immigration and crime.
To conclude, I welcome the integration into the Common Manual of practices applicable to seamen in transit and would highlight the importance of the collective visa which, as the rapporteur quite rightly observed, could become unenforceable if it were only issued to nationals of the same State.
I deplore, however, the ‘politically correct’ approach adopted by the rapporteur in insisting on adding gender-related words, when the fact is that basic interpretive rules would suffice and there was clearly never any discrimination in the Commission’s text."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples