Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-18-Speech-2-065"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-05-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 (amendment of Decision No 573/2007/EC). Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008) - Migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (amendment of Decision 2008/839/JHA) - The establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100518.6.2-065"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-05-18-Speech-2-0662
lpv:speaker	lp:Carlos Coelho2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; DEVE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; DROI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Partido Social Democrata (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Many thanks for the positive comments by various fellow Members. Mrs Malmström, I wanted you to know that Parliament is aware that you inherited this process and we have faith in your abilities and your intelligence, to bring it to the best possible conclusion. We also appreciate the efforts you have made towards transparency, which my fellow member, Mr Enciu, did a very good job of highlighting, as a matter of fact. As regards the deadline, we are giving off the wrong signals if the new migration instruments do not have a deadline. After all the delays, indefinitely extending the Commission’s mandate does not make any sense. I understand that the Commission is in no position to bind itself to the target suggested by Parliament, but we will set it and, if for any reason, the process has not been completed by that point, you can come back to Parliament to request an extension and explain why it is needed. Extending the Commission’s mandate without any deadline is a terrible signal after these delays, both to the European institutions and to the European public. I agree with your idea that the Global Programme Management Board must not be an assembly. I therefore understand the Commission’s reservations about limiting access to its work: I could not agree more. Parliament’s proposal was the result of a less favourable draft of the Commission’s original proposal, because the Commission, at the same time as limiting the composition of the Global Programme Management Board, was allowing any other official of the Commission, the Council or the Member States to participate. This raises a legitimate question: why can officials of the Commission and the Member States participate and not those of Parliament? If we restrict this body to its functions, I believe that we will all be in agreement, especially with the guarantees that the Commissioner has given regarding greater transparency."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph