Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-03-24-Speech-4-279-750"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-03-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"lt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110324.22.4-279-750"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-03-24-Speech-4-279-8752
lpv:speaker	lp:Juozas Imbrasas2
lpv:spokenAs	member; TRAN (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; EFD (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Partija Tvarka ir teisingumas (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula (2009-09-16--2012-02-14)3 member; Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; REGI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"The Hague Programme recognised that legal immigration would play an important role in economic development. It was with this in mind that it called on the Commission to submit an action plan to enable the labour market to respond rapidly to the constantly changing demand for manpower from abroad. The Stockholm Programme adopted by the European Council on 10 and 11 December 2009 expressed the view that labour immigration may increase competitiveness and economic vitality. In view of the considerable demographic challenges which the European Union will face in future, with growing demand for manpower, this new multiannual programme calls on Member States to adopt flexible immigration policies in order to support the Union’s long-term economic development and performance. The provisions in the proposal have the advantage of conferring better protection on workers from third countries than is currently the case on the basis of international conventions only ratified by certain Member States. I abstained because the proposal does not state who may submit an application – the employer or the employee – and from which State an application may be made, and it was necessary to clarify this important issue. It also failed to stress the requirements of legal certainty and transparency of decision making by national authorities. These decisions have a strong impact on the lives of the people concerned and Member States, and they must therefore be taken in a way which is completely transparent. Any rejection decision must be duly substantiated, transparent and objective."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph