Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-21-Speech-4-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021121.5.4-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to join the rapporteur in welcoming the prospect of implementing such a legislative provision, i.e. a position on the substance of the draft text.
Indeed it was high time, and the European Commission had a political responsibility towards the people affected by this draft regulation, particularly since the Tampere European Council in October 1999, which had established, in its conclusions, the need to take swift measures to ensure that nationals from third countries living legally in the European Union are treated equally.
What we welcome is the respect for equal treatment for residents of third countries with regard to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and the social equality resulting from it which, as has been said, provides quite substantial help towards integrating them but also encourages mobility. We are aware that this mobility, which we talk about so much, is much more difficult to put into practice than free movement of property and goods.
I would like to stress, because it should be done, the important contribution that the residents of third countries make to the European Union, both in terms of boosting the economy and in terms of a rich cultural diversity and when we talk about them we are potentially talking about around 13 million people in the Union. That is not an insignificant number.
However, like the rapporteur, I would like to draw your attention to the issue of the legal basis chosen by the European Commission following pressure from the Council. The European Parliament had the consultation procedure imposed on it, whereas the first proposal in 1997 was based on Article 51, now Article 42, which assumes codecision. That decision, the motivation for which seems to be more than questionable, as pointed out by the rapporteur, and therefore contestable, in fact places the European Parliament in a dilemma, that it can only solve by giving in, because that is exactly what is happening here. And unfortunately, it is not the first time that there has been an attempt to genuinely dismantle, as we could describe it, the prerogatives of our institution, which could be seen as a dangerous precedent. I fear that there is an underlying trend, and I think that our institution will have to be vigilant.
The Commission, following the Council’s recommendations, knows full well that Parliament is going to choose the path of pragmatism, and that it will prefer to abandon what you, Madam, called, legal hair-splitting, in order not to endanger urgent Community legislation. We would not like to take responsibility for the failure of something that we desire.
We do not wish to cross swords, but the question is there: in the future, should we penalise the citizens who are awaiting decisions from this House simply in order to ensure that Parliament’s position is respected? I think that this decision, the quite reasonable position of the European Parliament, should be used to help discussions on matters that will arise in the future or that we know are already being considered by the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples