Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-13-Speech-4-239-875"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111013.19.4-239-875"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Schengen Agreement in the Treaty on European Union provides for the removal of border controls as the right of every Member State provided it meets the security requirements – a definitive catalogue. The evaluation by the Schengen Evaluation Working Group found that both countries meet the formal criteria and also that, on account of extensive investments and the latest equipment, they would, in some respects, be even better prepared than the long-standing Schengen countries. Concerns over excessive mobility of workers are unfounded in view of the fact that the level of this mobility has hardly changed from its 2% mark in the last 30 years. Moreover, the fear that opening up the borders will open the floodgates to organised crime has to be refuted inasmuch as the inclusion of these two countries in the Schengen area and the associated inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria in the common Schengen Information System would, on the contrary, provide increased security. Concerns can be countered with sensible arguments, and the somewhat poor justification for the veto in the Council gives reason to suspect that it is more likely to have internal political motives. A refusal to include Member States in the Schengen area on the basis of arbitrary criteria is unlawful and a disgraceful course of action for the European Union to take. I therefore voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution, in which the Member States are emphatically called on ‘not to give priority to national populism’ in the decision on enlarging the Schengen area."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples