Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-18-Speech-3-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021218.7.3-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"As many people have already said, the common asylum and immigration policy is progressing in a very unbalanced way. Where repressive measures, including combating illegal immigration, are concerned, the Council has once again done a lot of energetic work this year. There is, however, currently no sign of an actual common asylum and migration policy, and that is not the Commission’s fault – no, it is the Council’s fault. The Council has opted for a highly unilateral approach. It has put control of our external borders and sanctions against offering assistance to those entering and staying illegally right at the top of the agenda. The removal and return policy has now been added to this as a priority. In this context we are talking today about the readmission agreement with third countries, in this case Hong Kong. Parliament was more or less left standing on the sidelines during the negotiations for this agreement, and has not been able to act in accordance with its allotted role. This should not have been allowed to happen, particularly as this agreement will be a model for future agreements of a similar kind. I have taken note of Mr Vitorino’s promise that this will not happen again, and I intend to remind him of this. My group can otherwise live with the content of the Hong Kong agreement, but we do endorse Mr Watson’s critical approach. Leading on from his questions, I would like to make the three following comments.
Firstly, to what extent are the deportation measures already taken effective in general, and how do we prevent people from third countries who have been deported from coming straight back into the EU countries they came from? Or is our policy of return primarily a virtual policy intended for domestic consumption, and is it supposed to mask the fact that the political courage to tackle the real problems is lacking?
Secondly, is forced return not supposed to be a tailpiece of our policy of return, a last resort, and what instruments does the European Union actually have to promote voluntary return in order to avoid forced return?
My last point: collective deportation is forbidden, including in the European Charter of Human Rights, but how are European Union Member States supposed to ensure that decisions to deport individual illegal immigrants from third countries are individually monitored, and how do we then prevent the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ from being violated?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples