Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.4.2-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the proposal for a directive on family reunification has been rearing its ugly head in the European Parliament periodically since 1999. The reason for this game of ping-pong is simple: first, the Commission makes an over-liberal proposal; the European Parliament approves it and raises the bid even higher; finally, the Council – which appears to be the most responsible of the three – says no and the cycle starts all over again.
This time the Commission thinks it has found an invincible weapon. It keeps a low profile on most of the provisions contested by the Council as if it were giving in, but introduces a new Article 19 at the end of the text explaining that all of these matters will be re-examined no more than two years later. Their tactics are clear. The idea is, at least initially, to gain approval for minimal European legislation on family reunification so as to have the principle of European law and European intervention recognised.
Subsequently, the Commission will use these points in its favour to return to the attack, all the more so given that Article 19 already states which provisions will have to be amended. As for the Council, there is a risk that they will let the text go through because they will all say – as they do all too often: 'the essential points are safe for the time being and as for the rest we will see in two years' time'.
We think, for our part, that the Council should not allow itself to be caught up in this chain of events. Family reunification accounts for a huge number of immigrants today and it is important for each Member State to retain its ability to keep it under close surveillance, so as to tailor it to its reception capacity. The Commission and the European Parliament dream of imposing an a priori extension of this right on the Member States, but it is out of the question that they would let this happen. We therefore think that this directive would serve no purpose and would be dangerous for the Member States, particularly since the Convention on the Future of Europe is showing a willingness to have all of these issues decided by qualified majority."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples