Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-02-16-Speech-4-042-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120216.5.4-042-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, unfortunately, I was unable to be present from the very start of this debate on the oral question I put forward due to a problem of communication and coordination of parliamentary activities. However, I have been present for most of the debate and I have found that my question is indeed relevant.
The directive on family reunification gave the Commission a mandate in 2003 to periodically report to the European Parliament on the state of implementation of the directive and any related problems. This mandate included the production of a Green Paper, which has been submitted for discussion.
However, the frame of reference for implementing the Family Reunification Directive has changed drastically since 2003, precisely as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon, which reaffirms the area of freedom, security and justice, thereby transferring the free movement of people within a certain group of states that have removed their internal borders to the Community pillar – in other words, to EU law. Then again, the Treaty of Lisbon also includes a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 7 and 9 of which lay down the right to marry and found a family and the right to private and family life.
In this context, a debate has arisen in a fair number of Member States concerning cases of alleged abuse in the implementation of the Family Reunification Directive. It is worth noting that this debate has been particularly heated in some countries where the immigration rate is much lower – and therefore the problem is less dramatic – than in other countries where this matter does not arouse such passion.
The time has therefore come to analyse the real problems surrounding the implementation of the Family Reunification Directive, and to do so rationally, thoroughly, on the basis of reliable documentation, and avoiding all prejudice and smokescreens. Are there really any objective, hard facts that justify a debate on changing the terms of this directive? Are there really cases of abuse that justify changing the directive to make it more restrictive? Is it really a problem to establish, uniformly across all the countries in the Union, a maximum period for granting a uniform residence permit to the spouses, unmarried partners or underage children of people who already hold an EU residence permit and therefore have the right to free movement? What are the real problems this directive has given rise to?
Leaving all the prejudice and confusion to one side, that is the key issue that prompted me to submit this oral question, and the one that needs to be discussed. I hope the work carried out by the Commission will help to shed some light on this debate."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples