Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-16-Speech-4-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041216.9.4-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The rapporteur sought to propose that the Court of Justice should have its competence broadened through the revocation of Article 68 of the EC Treaty. That was an addition to the proposal for a Council decision, in that several areas of Title IV, Part III of the EC Treaty (visas, asylum, immigration and other policies concerning the free movement of persons) would then be governed by Article 251 of the EC Treaty.
As I have already argued on other occasions, I think that the Union should gradually consolidate its competences and practices rather than try to satisfy a constant appetite for new competences. Every proposal deals with sensitive material, and the report’s addition suffers from the maximalism typical of a centralising Europe, even though that path does not enjoy popular support.
I am not sure that the proposed revocation would strengthen the legal protection of European citizens and third country nationals in the slightest, as Mr Bourlanges claims it would. I believe, rather, that it would have exactly the opposite effect. I think Parliament would do better if it confined itself to supporting the proposal for a decision as presented – which in itself represents a major, ambitious advance for the area of freedom, security and justice – and if it could refrain from embarking on this unhealthy, voracious pursuit of ‘what lies beyond’."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples