Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-101"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-02-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Cross-border services2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000202.7.3-101"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-02-02-Speech-3-1022
lpv:speaker	lp:Ana Palacio Vallelersundi2
lpv:spokenAs	chair; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 president; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2002-07-09)3 substitute; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to highlight the excellent work carried out by Mrs Berger and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market generally, which has incorporated innovative ideas into this directive, which I hope will be approved by the Commission and the Council. Nevertheless, I have tabled an amendment. Mrs Berger, in your Amendment No 2 to Recital 6, you mention legal security. The first point on which we disagree is the duration of three months for the residency permit, since all that does is create legal insecurity. You rightly raise the concern, also expressed by Mr Wieland, at the possibility of workers disappearing into thin air when their work permits expire, but I think that we would be making this even more likely by bringing in a three month permit. If the validity of the service provision card expires on a certain date, it must end on that date. Legal security requires this. On the other hand, with regard to point d of Amendment No 10, which refers to the first directive, you suggest that, for reasons of public security or public order regulations, a Member State may reject the validity of the card. There are already some controls laid down in article 4 of the directive. It makes no sense for any worker within the Schengen area, since he or she will already have undergone a screening process in order to enter the first Member State, and the second Member State would be justified in rejecting the entry of that worker into its territory. It therefore makes no sense to maintain that legal insecurity. In the case of a non-Schengen state, in the last paragraph of Amendment No 22, that possibility is contemplated, and is perfectly expressed, and I believe this provides greater legal security. The discretional power of the State, which you propose in point e of your Amendment No 10, seems to me to be inconsistent with the rest of your excellent report. I would therefore ask Members to examine my amendment carefully, and I hope that tomorrow we will achieve a result."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"ex ante"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph