Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-10-19-Speech-1-098"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-10-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Evaluation mechanism to monitor the application of the Schengen acquis - Establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20091019.17.1-098"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-10-19-Speech-1-0992
lpv:speaker	lp:Tadeusz Zwiefka2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AFCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Platforma Obywatelska (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-24--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; JURI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, it is good that the discussion we are having today to evaluate the Schengen is taking place at the same time as a larger debate is beginning in the European Union, and also in the European Parliament, on the Stockholm Programme. This is a major project concerning exceptionally important areas of the lives of EU citizens, such as justice, freedom and security. For instance, two elements of the programme, the freedom and security of EU citizens, clearly should be included in the evaluation of the Schengen project. We must, therefore, ask ourselves what the European Union was set up for and why it is so important for us that this great project succeed. After all, it was not created for the politicians or for international organisations, but for particular states. It was, in fact, set up for the good of its citizens. Therefore, the good of the citizens, their freedom and liberty, but also the highest possible standards of security which should be guaranteed to them, are one of the main elements of the work which the EU institutions should undertake. It is, therefore, not good that we are discussing the Schengen area on its own without combining this discussion with an evaluation of the EU’s migration programme, visa programme and the programme for cooperation with neighbouring countries. For only then can joint discussion and common evaluation of the situation lead to our reaching appropriate conclusions – this is what the involvement of Parliament in making these decisions is for, and I hope this will happen. I am, therefore, convinced that Schengen has performed well. Despite the fact that it was said initially that the admission of new countries to the Schengen Area would be impossible without the adoption of SIS II, the admission of 10 countries in 2004 showed that it was possible, and that nothing disastrous happened. Now we need only take care to ensure that mechanisms intended to improve and tighten up the functioning of the system be developed as quickly as possible with, of course, the involvement of the European Parliament. This explains my esteem for Carlos Coelho and I fully endorse his report."@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