Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-099"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-06-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030603.5.2-099"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-06-03-Speech-2-1002
lpv:speaker	lp:Georges Berthu2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; NA (2001-01-31--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Mouvement pour la France (2000-11-23--2004-07-19)3 member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". The European Parliament has just rejected the proposal for a Council decision which aimed to establish practical measures for the application of the directive on mutual recognition between the Member States of decisions that each one might be led to take in order to expel third-country nationals. Fortunately, this House was only consulted for an opinion, and this draft can therefore at last undergo the adoption procedure. We feel that its content is entirely justified, and that Parliament is trying to start an unreasonable quarrel. Most of the House maintained that Article 63(3) of the EC Treaty could not constitute a valid legal base: it does concern the adoption of common measures to repatriate illegal residents, but this provision would authorise measures concerning content rather than procedure. This is a specious distinction, which even the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market could not support. Here, in fact, Parliament is showing its normal pro-immigration bias: what it does not like about this draft is that it might facilitate the repatriation of illegal immigrants. Of course, we did not support it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph