Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-04-Speech-3-492-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-07-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Breaches of Schengen rules (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120704.29.3-492-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-07-04-Speech-3-493-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Carlos Coelho2
lpv:spokenAs	member; LIBE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; DROI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; CRIM (2012-03-28--2013-10-23)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Partido Social Democrata (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; DEVE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, listening to the speakers, we are all – with the exception of a couple from the far right – in agreement. We all agree that freedom of movement is one of the European Union’s greatest achievements. We all agree it needs to be strengthened. We all believe an area without border checks is essential to the internal market and that it brings benefits to the Member States and the public. We all agree with the need to improve governance of Schengen, and we even all agree that Schengen’s current evaluation system is inadequate and that we need a system guaranteeing a transparent, effective and consistent Schengen system. Why, then, do we need to bring specific cases into the Chamber? Commissioner Malmström said that, as well as those mentioned by Parliament in the oral question, she is currently investigating some 11 cases. These 11 cases prove that there are systematic breaches of freedom of movement under Schengen. These 11 cases prove that the European institutions were unable to stop them. These 11 cases prove that Schengen’s current evaluation system is not working and that is the key issue. The President-in-Office of the Council said the reasons were just legal, but that is not true. The Cypriot Presidency is getting off on the wrong foot by trying to pull the wool over Parliament’s eyes on this, because the reasons are political: the Council wants to continue covering up breaches of the Schengen Agreement, which is what it has systematically been doing with its peer-to-peer evaluation system. We need a genuine evaluation system; an EU-level system, led by the European Commission and subject to the codecision procedure, voted on by the Council and by Parliament. We think that is how we will defend Schengen, will defend freedom of movement, and will defend what is one of the best guarantees and the greatest successes of European integration."@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