Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.2.2-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all concerning the legal bases – the issue raised by Mr Pirker – our assessment is that Article 63(3) of the Treaty on conditions for entry and residence is the correct legal basis for this proposal for a directive that deals with common definitions, criteria and procedures regarding the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment.
I recognise this is a difficult debate. To be frank, Mr Nassauer and I have been discussing these issues for a very long time, and we all know that there is no magic solution to this very complex problem of immigration. I accept the criticisms, I can even admit that I can be wrong. However, what I find difficult to accept is being criticised for things that I have never said and that are not written in my proposal. I have never said that there is a right to immigration. There is no right to immigration. I will repeat it hundreds of times: there is a right to asylum, but there is no right to immigration. Immigration is only a possibility. Our proposal states that very clearly. The decision on admission is exclusively that of the government of each Member State or even of the regional or local authorities of the Member States - Brussels does not decide on one single entry.
I recognise that the link between migration and unemployment is very complex. Evidence shows that migrants might affect and disrupt the internal labour market. The first victims of new waves of migrants, as far as the functioning of our Member States' labour market is concerned, are previous waves of migrants, because there is direct competition between newcomers and the earlier migrants. That is a source of concern, because the existing migrants will be a burden for the social welfare state.
Is there a direct link between the arrival of migrants and the re-entry into the labour market of our own European citizens? There the connection is much more complex, because in certain cases the difficulty of re-entering the labour market is more connected with the specific characteristics of the welfare state and social security systems that benefit our own citizens. It is unfair to say that migration policies are the reason why European Union citizens have difficulty re-entering the labour market. In fact, it is the lack of reform of the welfare state that is responsible for the difficulty of encouraging people to re-enter the labour market. Of course, that lack of reform varies from one Member State to another. I do not want to harmonise anything with regard to reform of the welfare state.
As far as the report is concerned, the Commission welcomes and fully agrees with Amendments 6, 11, 8 and 12, but we cannot make any commitment today on those amendments concerning rules on intra-corporate transfers and contractual service suppliers. Those rules are very interesting and we will bear them in mind. However, they are closely linked to international trade issues and we have to wait for the ongoing World Trade Organisation negotiations to see what the impact of those negotiations will be on migration policy, above all as far as services are concerned. I would urge you to keep the reference to the EURES system before being able to recruit third-country workers, because keeping that system will guarantee the principle of preference for the European labour market. That is a fundamental principle in our proposal.
I look forward to seeing Parliament's amendments and thank you for this very interesting and stimulating debate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples