Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-05-Speech-2-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020205.5.2-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we naturally welcome the proposal for a Council directive which is totally in line with the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere conclusions, which stressed the need to finally put in place a policy for integrating third-country nationals. Having said that, we could not support the report. We regret that the proposal does nothing more than set out the conditions governing the residence of third-country nationals and that it does not, in any shape or form, establish a genuine European status for third-country nationals comparable to that of EU citizens.
By the same token, family members must enjoy the same rights as the person they are joining. Yet, the way in which it is presented in the report, the right to live a normal family life, which is internationally recognised, does not take into account certain fundamental laws.
Although the right to vote was, in principle, adopted in part, the conditions of application are not mentioned. Political rights are, however, an integral part of any integration policy. Fundamental rights are universal and if the universality of rights must be applied without exception, it should also apply to everyone, whether or not they are EU citizens. As for the criteria regarding resources and evaluating the stability of resources, would it not be better to offer all residents access to the labour market, rather than to confine some of them to exclusion?
Furthermore, there is no reason why students or persons that have been granted residence with subsidiary protection should be excluded from the scope of the proposal.
Firstly, however, the concepts of public order and security, which are reasons for excluding persons from permanent status, require a common definition. Yet these concepts are now left to the discretion of the States or the competent authorities, which gives rise to serious discrimination, particularly towards third-country nationals.
Lastly, with regard to procedures, the examination process takes six months, which is far too long. If the application is refused, a redress period, which does not exist, should be provided and this must have a suspensory effect, enabling any attempt at the expulsion of the person to be blocked, in the name of the right to self-defence.
My final point is that the directive does not cover the millions of third-country nationals who are residing illegally, but who urgently need a political solution from Europe. The Union must therefore shoulder its responsibilities.
To sum up, this report does not promote equality between citizens of the Union and citizens of third countries. The European status of a long-term resident does not exist. We must not therefore sanction this type of political approach."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples