Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-13-Speech-1-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041213.8.1-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have no objection to moving the Dutch initiative on vehicle theft onto the agenda, as I feel that it would be a nice gesture to the Dutch Presidency for Parliament to state its position on what is, after all, a peaceful initiative, and one that does not cause controversy in this House. What does not strike me as reasonable is that this should be done at the expense of the initiative on registers. This is because the main thrust of the issue of registers is the introduction of biometric data. In the last part-session in Brussels, Parliament stated its position on this issue relating to passports. What we must now do is close the file on visas. This is not a codecision issue. The point is that Parliament gives its opinion to the Council and either Parliament submits this opinion in time to ensure that that opinion can influence the Council’s decision or we lose due to ‘non-appearance’, because the Council goes ahead and makes its decision in the absence of a Parliament position.
Our position was well-founded, having enjoyed the consensus of the Socialists in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and I see no reason why we should give up this vote in today’s sitting.
I therefore believe, Mr President, that we could integrate the report on the Dutch initiative, which would be a nice gesture to the Presidency-in-Office, but without removing the visas report, which was, indeed, adopted in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs by an overwhelming majority, including the Socialist vote."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples