Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-05-Speech-2-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020205.5.2-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Commission’s proposal on the movement of third-country nationals within EU countries for stays of less than three months is not restricted to harmonising conditions; it also aims to reduce certain controls in the name of ‘freedom’. This is the case, for example, with the ‘reporting of presence’ by foreigners under the Schengen Convention which I mentioned in yesterday’s debate. Even if this obligation to declare oneself was poorly applied, I was of the opinion that it was a matter of urgency to strengthen this obligation, rather than to weaken it.
In another area, the Commission is also pursuing its former approach by proposing to introduce a ‘specific travel authorisation’ issued by a Member State which will apply in all the others, in order to facilitate the movement of third-country nationals for a period of less than six months. This reform is a good illustration of the subversive technique whereby a series of small steps can finally bring about the grand plan.
As things stand, stays of more than three months are subject to national visas which fall within the sovereignty of each State. The ‘travel authorisation’ proposed by the Commission would erode this mechanism. In order to justify this derogation, on page 9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission mentions the case of certain foreigners who would need to move around the EU over a six-month period in their capacity as ‘recipients of services’, such as ‘tourists’ or ‘persons taking health cures’ or even ‘musicians’, as Commissioner Vitorino mentioned during the debate. This pretext is rather weak; hardly any tourists stay for six consecutive months in the EU and there is no justification for developing a directive specifically for them. The advantage for the Commission is elsewhere, namely the destruction of the coherence of a system based on national sovereignties in order to introduce a different kind of system, one that has supranational objectives.
This dogmatic exercise will not bring any other benefits for our current area of priority, which is controlling migration flows and security. On the contrary, there is a danger that it will harm it, by encouraging weaknesses and inconsistencies to appear."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples