Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-04-Speech-3-523-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120704.29.3-523-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is a difficult discussion. I hope that nobody really questions the intentions of the Cyprus Presidency.
We firmly believe in a European Union as a space of freedom, including the fundamental issue of freedom of movement, to which Schengen makes an outstanding contribution.
Of course we will fully respect the Treaty and the framework of the Treaty, but we of course stand ready to discuss, and see what improvements we can bring.
The Council firmly believes that the new arrangements for Schengen governance, which are already in place, provide a solid basis for ensuring greater oversight of developments in the Schengen area, including by the European Parliament. Please allow me in this intervention to limit myself to the issue at hand and not comment on external borders, although we all know that the two questions are interlinked.
The Council very much wants Parliament to be involved in the ongoing process on the legislative aspects of the new Schengen governance arrangements. That includes not only the proposal for amending the Schengen Borders Code, which remains – as many of you very rightly mentioned – subject to the ordinary legislative procedure (codecision) but also the Schengen evaluation mechanism proposal. And in saying this I really weigh my words.
My plea to all of you is that we at least agree now to define, confine and circumscribe the disagreement that indeed exists between the European Parliament and the Council to one question, and that is the question of evaluation.
The honourable rapporteur, Mr Coelho, will allow me to say and to insist that there is also a fundamentally legal question and, please do not get me wrong, I am not doing away with the political sensitivities and political aspects of this. But when it comes to evaluation there is an issue on whether, under the Treaty, evaluation remains a peer review or whether it is a competence which has been transferred to the Community level. And somewhere there is agreement there. We should not have a very passionate debate on this – let us talk and let us find a way forward! But please do not consider that it is about lowering existing standards and guarantees.
The Council is already publicly committed to ensuring that the view of the European Parliament will, to the fullest extent possible, be taken into consideration in all its aspects before the adoption of the final text.
We have, of course, also taken very good note of all the comments and, I assure you, all the criticisms you addressed to the Council and be assured that we do not take it badly and we will convey the ‘heat’ we received to the Council and to the Member States.
Based on this, we will try our utmost to find a satisfactory way forward and we hope that we can come to a mutually satisfactory understanding as to how that can be given a practical expression, thus enabling work on these proposals to be brought to a successful conclusion in the very near future.
Let me conclude by saying that we remain as committed as all of you to preserving and strengthening the free movement of persons, as one of the most tangible and successful achievements of European integration."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples