Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-20-Speech-2-666-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-11-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Possible delays to the start of the operation of SIS II (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"ro"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20121120.35.2-666-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-11-20-Speech-2-667-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Ioan Enciu2
lpv:spokenAs	member; CRIM (2012-03-28--2013-10-23)3 unknown; Partidul Social Democrat (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ITRE (2012-02-21--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; S&D (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, the reports which we are debating this evening on migration to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) were adopted by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs by way of a simplified procedure in order to make both the legal instruments and the funds necessary for the switchover to the new SIS generation available to the Commission and the Member States as quickly as possible. Sadly, this spirit of good faith and good cooperation on the part of Parliament stands in stark contrast with the attitude of certain Member States which say that they are disinterested in the success of SIS II. I sincerely share with you my personal frustration and that of the European Parliament as a whole at this never-ending problem which is the Schengen Information System II. It is already ridiculous that an information system, even a complex one, should take more than 12 years to be developed and implemented, and even now the Member States and the Commission are unable to fulfil their commitments and are repeating past mistakes. We have, in this case, a worrying lack of responsibility on the part of both Finland, which is showing a lack of interest in carrying out some simple tests, and the Commission. The basic precondition imposed on the Commission by Parliament for the disbursement of funds for the development of SIS II was the Commission’s commitment to comply with and carefully supervise the migration process. Unfortunately, I see that the Commission has not lived up to this commitment. All of these things once again highlight the reasons why the whole management of the Schengen Area needs to be changed and Europeanised. If we had an efficient Union evaluation mechanism, all of these delays could have been avoided and action could have been taken to correct such problems as Finland’s far more promptly. Finally, I wish to point out the irony of the situation of Romania and Bulgaria, candidate countries which, although they meet all of the requirements of the for access to the Schengen Area, have not been allowed to join, yet an old Schengen Member State is having serious problems in complying with the"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"acquis"1 "acquis."1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph