Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-12-Speech-1-139-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-12-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Single application procedure for residence and work (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20111212.16.1-139-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-12-12-Speech-1-140-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Cornelia Ernst2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2012-01-10)3,3 unknown; DIE LINKE. (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 member; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2012-07-08)3,3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Iran (2009-09-29--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; FEMM (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with Afghanistan (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; REGI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the combined work and residence permit for third-country nationals in the EU came in like a lion and is going out like a lamb, to coin a phrase. This in no way opens the way for a truly simplified regulation for third-country nationals who would like to work in the EU. That remains the case even if residence is increasingly being linked with work. In many cases that may be all well and good – but it is the only focus here, and we see that as a problem. Furthermore, we do not feel that this directive is a step in the right direction. Firstly, this is because its scope is too narrow. Its provisions are narrow-minded and provincial. It is not just that it is only to be applicable to the executing Member State and not to the EU as a whole; that does not even get mentioned any more. It is also that the regulation is not to apply to family members of Union citizens if they are third-country nationals, nor to seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferees or people under international or temporary protection. This gives rise to all kinds of individual directives, and as a result there are different classes of third-country nationals with differing rights. My second point is that there is no real simplification or legal harmonisation, and this is true through the mere fact that the Member States actually have the final say on all matters – such as whether it is the employer or the employee who is to apply for the permit. If it is the employer, the potential employee may not even get to see the application, such as in cases where it is rejected. He will have absolutely no opportunity to comment legally in any form whatsoever. We are also critical of the fact that an application may be deemed inadmissible if the Member State sets quotas for the labour market. The third point I would like to make – and I will concede this to the rapporteur – is that it is good that pension entitlements will be recognised. It is absolutely unacceptable, however, that there is not completely equal treatment with employees who are EU nationals. There are to be considerable restrictions – and these will depend on the class of person – when it comes to vocational training, social benefits – such as for family members – and access to public housing. That is really not acceptable. If that is made a fundamental principle, then it is a mistake and we cannot support it. That is why we are rejecting this."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph