Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.2.3-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in the event that the amendments we are presenting to Mrs Boumediene-Thiery ’s report are not accepted, my group will vote against it for reasons which I believe to be fundamental.
The directives under debate today refer to the free movement and residence of students as well as people who have ceased professional activity or who are economically inactive and who, furthermore, receive disability or old-age pensions or subsidies – all of them Community citizens – as well as the exceptions laid down in another directive on expulsion for reasons of public order, security or public health.
The problem is that Mrs Boumediene-Thiery widens the scope of these directives to include citizens of third countries. For example, section 20 of the resolution extends family reunification to non-Community families and their relatives in ascending and descending lines, who are not dependent on the resident, which would increase admission without restrictions. Furthermore, to treat unmarried couples on the same terms as married couples, which does not raise many problems in the case of Community citizens, given the diversity of the legislation, does raise problems in the case of third country citizens because there would be very real problems recognising stable cohabitation. It would give rise to so-called marriages of convenience or false marriages, and that amounts to fraud..
Furthermore, I believe that all the false logic which is used when referring to migrant workers has no place in this debate, not so much because of the subject matter but rather because it is not appropriate for the study of these directives.
As the Commission says, the level of information needs to be improved so that European citizens are crystal clear as to what their rights are with regard to moving freely within the internal market, with clear, concise and specific rules and using communication technologies such as the Internet, the television, or local and regional media. Commissioner, the suggestion that replies to parliamentary questions should reach our various citizens by means of the methods of communication considered appropriate, does not seem to me to be a good procedure. I think that it is impractical, apart from anything else because not even MEPs always read those replies.
It is also necessary to eliminate the absurd amount of paperwork needed to justify the nature and size of the pension. I believe that an identity card for pensioners and the use of computers should replace these cumbersome forms of authorising payments. The same would apply to students. In order to facilitate their mobility, we should free them of unnecessary costs and make their residence compatible with their periods of study or apprenticeship.
Finally, I would also like to point out that it makes no sense to link public order, as section 6 of the resolution does, with the Schengen area in a proposal aimed at the citizens of the European Union, who are not governed by the Schengen legislation but by Community directives, in particular those relating to public order.
In order to update the legislation, I believe it is necessary to revise the texts by means of a new regulation and simplify the obstacles to free movement and to the residence of Community citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples