Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.16.2-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Nothing in Mr Catania’s report on European citizenship was worthy of support. However, two proposals were particularly shocking. Firstly, the demand for a form of European citizenship that includes the right of all residents of a country, irrespective of their nationality, to vote and stand for election, in local, national and European elections. Secondly, the demand for citizenship rights in the Member States to be harmonised, on the pretext that the differences between these rights bring about discrimination against non-Europeans who wish to acquire European citizenship as currently defined in the Treaties.
Where will this madness end? The only possible way of acquiring citizenship of a country is by having the nationality of that country. It is exclusively for the sovereign Member States to determine the conditions to be fulfilled before nationality can be conferred. Granting foreigners the right to vote, irrespective of their nationality, comes down to granting them a dual right: the one that they can continue to exercise in their country of origin plus the one that they can exercise in their country of residence. In reality, therefore, this is an unfair measure. Being someone’s guest does not give you the right to interfere in their business.
For all of these reasons, it is a good thing that this report has been rejected."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples