Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-04-Speech-3-489-000"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20120704.29.3-489-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". Mr President, we really ought to speak plainly and clearly today, and this plain-speaking includes the fact that we cannot turn the clock back, and nor do we want to. As Parliament, we have the right under the Treaty to be involved in decisions on all matters relating to Schengen and not just to be casually consulted. That is something that I would like to make clear at the start. I would also like to say that this EU law simply must not be left to the arbitrariness of political freebooters – and that is how I would describe it. Politically motivated contravention – and that is also the term I would choose to use – using the Schengen agreement as a kind of muscle-flexing in election campaigns, is totally unacceptable, and also has nothing to do with EU law. These problems do not only include arbitrary border closures, which we had for a time and which, of course, violate EU law, they also include the installation of cameras at 15 border crossings between Germany and the Netherlands and Belgium. If these do not also constitute border controls, then what are they? Furthermore, all that nonsense from a German interior minister concerning the reintroduction of border controls is obviously dangerous. It is dangerous not just because of the problems with Schengen, but also because it represents the arguments of the extreme right, and not just in Germany. Equally unacceptable is the fact that, at the border between Germany and the Czech Republic, which is, incidentally, where I live, buses are constantly being checked. We must not tolerate this. It is not only buses from the Czech Republic that are being checked, but people who look a bit different in some way, for example those who have slightly darker skin, are also being checked. This is also part of the problem. Let us make it very clear that this is not acceptable. We do not want this, because it contravenes the law and because, as Parliament, we do not want this sort of policy. We therefore also express our criticism of the Council’s action in the strongest possible terms. After all, this is not merely a contravention of the law; it is also undemocratic. I therefore suggest that the Council discusses four things with us: Firstly, we ought to be in agreement that there must be no arbitrariness in the way that the Schengen Agreement is implemented. That is something I would like to discuss. Secondly, we want to increase free movement. We want to talk about this. Thirdly, in the event of contraventions of the Schengen Agreement, we want the Commission, with the involvement of the Council, to draw the necessary conclusions. Lastly, as Parliament, we want to be fully involved in all matters, and that includes decision making."@en1
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph