Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-12-Speech-2-011-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120612.4.2-011-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, next Thursday – in two days’ time – we will celebrate Schengen’s 27th birthday. So let me thank the Minister very much for the gift.
It is a shame that we are having this debate today. In fact it is a disgrace. Certainly it is a disgrace, Mr Minister when, a few minutes before starting this debate, you publish a press statement in Danish – and we have some Danish Members who will be able to read that – saying that this agreement is good for Europe and that it has been the outcome of a very deep dialogue with the EU Commission and with the EU Parliament. That is what it says in the statement released by your services this morning, just a few minutes ago.
Well, Mr Minister, we are no longer living in the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages, there was a dialogue between the King and the Parliament, but today we live in the 21st century. It is not based on dialogue but on codecision in a modern society and in a modern parliament. So we do not need your dialogue. What we need is for you to recognise the powers of the European Parliament.
In fact, colleagues, this dispute is not about the power of the European Parliament. It is, in fact, a question of an attempt by the Council to renationalise Schengen by doing two things: first of all. changing the legal basis so that this Parliament lies outside the decision-making process and secondly – and more importantly – by clearly stating that implementation of the new
will be delegated to the Council and not to the Commission. So this is not an attack against Parliament but, more importantly, an attack against the Commission, against the communitarian method, and against the fact that Schengen is a full part of European Union policies.
What is an even bigger scandal is that the United Kingdom, which is not in Schengen and has an opt-out, will be treated better than Parliament. Under Article 70, the UK will continue to be present at the negotiations –without having a say, apparently, but it will be present – but this Parliament will not.
So we have to take clear action today. Firstly, I think we need to go to court.
Secondly, why is it necessary to pay for all this? If they want to renationalise, let them renationalise, for example, and then pay for the Schengen
themselves. Instead, it is the European Union which has to do it.
Thirdly, Minister, why are we continuing with you on Justice and Home Affairs? Why continue with the Dublin II report on asylum? We have a trialogue on 19 June. Why is it necessary to go on with it? Why continue with the Díaz de Mera report on the visa safeguard clause? We have two trialogues in the next two weeks. Why are we continuing with this? Why are we continuing with the Weber report on the reintroduction of border controls if we have no say on the Coelho report? Why should we continue in any way with you, the Danish Presidency? Why are we not suspending all talks on Justice and Home Affairs until the new Presidency is in place?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples