Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-04-Speech-1-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020204.5.1-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can only welcome the Commission’s initiative on the freedom of circulation of third-country nationals within the Schengen area, since this is something that I, myself, specifically wanted when we discussed the two previous reports. In fact, the instrument proposed certainly meets the requirements for a more global and integrated approach, which is what we had asked for. Congratulations, then, to the Commission for its initiative.
Let me now turn to Mrs Kessler’s report, and say that, overall, my group supports its direction and its amendments. Like Mrs Kessler, we also believe that the regulation is, as it stands, a more adequate legal instrument than the directive. We agree with the clarifications that she has made regarding the definition of the length of time that the travel authorisation is valid.
There is, however, one point in Mrs Kessler’s report which surprised me, speaking from a personal point of view, namely, the virtually unrelenting effort she has made to combat the Commission’s proposal, under which the holders of a long-stay visa who do not yet possess a permanent residence permit can only move around freely if they have submitted an official application for a residence permit in the Member State that issued their visa. In her report, Mrs Kessler writes – and I quote – ‘There are no obvious grounds – what a lovely way of putting it, Mrs Kessler! – why the rules on the point at which the period of freedom to travel begins for these particular third-country nationals should be any different from those concerning the other third-country nationals covered by the same legislation.’ You have written ‘there are no grounds for this’ in your report! Well, in fact, Mrs Kessler, there are grounds for this. What the Commission is proposing in this case is exactly what the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs voted for unanimously and what this entire House approved when it voted in favour of my report on the French initiative.
The truth, Mrs Kessler, is that we are in line with the Council’s position that Parliament rejected whilst approving the report that I have just mentioned. There are therefore grounds for this, Mrs Kessler, both institutions share the same view, how on earth can you not recognise that?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples