Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.5.2-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like firstly to acknowledge the work and efforts of Mr Kirkhope. In particular, I acknowledge the difficulties we know he has faced during his work on this initiative. But this lack of a clear approach and these difficulties which Mr Kirkhope has experienced, have largely been due to the lack of clarity and the changes which the Council has introduced into the text, confirming that there is no unanimity on this issue. This makes work very complicated, not only for Mr Kirkhope, but for the whole of this House and, of course, for those of us in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs who have tried to improve the text.
We have therefore deemed it necessary to request the withdrawal of the present text in the hope of achieving a better initiative, which would contribute to the creation of a real Community policy on this issue.
We must remember that the European Council, at its meeting in Tampere of October 1999, as we all know, agreed that the different but closely related issues of asylum and immigration require the creation of a European Union common policy, and elements were established which should include cooperation with countries of origin, a common European asylum system, the fair treatment of nationals of third countries and the management of migration flows.
Also highlighted was the need to adopt a broad focus on the management or regulation of migration flows, including political issues, human rights issues, development issues and, of course, the fight against illegal immigration and human trafficking, which involves the countries of origin and of transit.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is essential, not only in the case of this initiative, but of others which we are going to deal with next today, and of those which we are no doubt going to continue debating over the coming years, that the European Union adopt clear and fair principles which, of course, comply with the United Nations Geneva Convention of 1951.
The European Union’s response to illegal immigration should not be restricted exclusively to strictly controlling it. We must not shirk our responsibilities for defending and promoting human rights. These rights must be reflected in this initiative. We must regulate migratory flow through all the mechanisms at our disposal, but we must accept that a sufficient number of people can be received so as to prevent illegal immigration and eliminate the mafias that control it.
I would like to remind this House of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention, which states that there must be a real and well-founded fear of persecution in order to justify illegal entry into the territory of a country of asylum.
In these cases, such people may use false documents as the only way to escape from imminent threats to their life or freedom. We must therefore guarantee that carriers are exempted from penalties in relation to asylum seekers with a view to creating an area of freedom, security and justice.
Our objective is to improve the management of migratory movements within a framework of close cooperation with the countries of origin and of transit, stepping up the fight against this type of immigration and combating the criminal elements involved, while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the victims.
It is a pity that this text presented by the Swedish Presidency does not offer any real progress in relation to the initial text of the French initiative. Unfortunately, the reality of immigration requires global, coherent and coordinated initiatives and not one-off actions, like this one, which is limited to implementing Article 26 of the Schengen Agreement. It is essential that we safeguard the institution of asylum. We must exempt carriers who transport foreign nationals from penalties, if those foreign nationals then seek asylum once arriving in the receiving country, even if the request is subsequently rejected. Nor can we oblige carriers to examine the motives of the asylum seeker and thereby perform the role which falls to the Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples