Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-21-Speech-4-147"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021121.5.4-147"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, it is with mixed feelings that I stand here, not because this debate failed to be concluded before lunch and I am due to give a speech this evening in my own country, but because on the one hand, I am pleased and delighted that we today managed to settle an issue that will be concluded successfully in the Council of Ministers and on the other, I would have taken the greatest pleasure in defending what we believe ourselves entitled to as a Parliament – and for which I would have been quite happy to go to the Court of Justice – namely the legal basis underlying Regulation 1408, which involves codecision. I did not do this and I am also grateful to my fellow MEPs who were dissuaded from fighting this battle.
Why are we not facing the battle? Because of the great importance of extending the regulation to include third-country nationals and due to the fact that something is finally being done about the legal position of those who reside legally in a European Member State but who subsequently, when they live or work elsewhere, have no rights whatsoever. The European Court of Justice has said several times that the coordination regulation should apply to these legally resident citizens as well. The Commission has submitted a directive, an amendment to a regulation, on this very subject. It chose to use a different legal basis but failed to get the Council to ratify it. I am indebted to the Commission, but also, as I have already stated, to my fellow MEPs, for deciding to turn their backs on envy and political squabbling and for opting, with good reason, to bring these citizens within the scope of Regulation 1408. I think that an institutional battle over what would have been the correct legal basis would have lasted for many years and would certainly not have benefited these people.
We as Parliament have therefore seized the earliest opportunity – and I believe that the Council of Ministers will be taking a decision on 3 December next – to establish the rights of these citizens – their duties have already been set out. The fact that the Danes and even the British felt they should be involved in this regulation filled me with particular joy. It will in any event also create clarity, which is desperately needed.
When the amendments will be adopted shortly, we
say to the Council that if further amendments are made to our opinion or if the legal position of the people concerned is changed, we will retain the right to join this institutional battle with the Council over these points. What we have included is just about acceptable, but in any event, it contains the serious warning that if things are not going as planned and as agreed, we will keep the avenue to the Court in Luxembourg open.
I would once again like to thank all fellow MEPs who have worked on this system with great commitment and a great deal of dynamism and who, along with me, were prepared to support the Commission in this proposal. In addition, I should like to make an observation which concerns one of your officials, Mr Verschueren, who is at the moment unwell at home, but who, in my view, is the best spokesperson on behalf of the Commission on this subject matter. I should like to extend to him, via yourself, my warmest wishes for a very speedy recovery. I am certain that I am also doing this on behalf of the fellow MEPs who are working on this dossier."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples