Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.1.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Ribeiro certainly deserves to be congratulated. He has tabled an ambitious and comprehensive draft resolution at this critical juncture. Commissioner Vitorino acknowledged as much.
I endorse everything Mrs Paciotti has already said concerning human rights, and would like to focus on two issues in this draft resolution.
I shall deal first with criminal judicial cooperation. My comments are addressed mainly to the Council. In my view, the arrest warrant is a most significant development. It enshrines the essence of the principle of mutual recognition and ought to have been implemented in all Member States by now. The warrant has implications for the fight against terrorism and also for the fight against criminal activity. I believe we should be much more actively engaged in follow-up measures such as the exchange of evidence. There is no way of convincing the citizens that this cannot be done in order to improve security as we Europeans would like it improved, namely by increased cooperation rather than increased repression.
In addition, I think it is important to make an effort to ensure the framework decision on court rights is adopted. This is particularly relevant within the context of the current discussions on enlargement. In my view, it is the other side of the coin of judicial and police cooperation and mutual recognition in the context of cooperation in the field of criminal judicial cooperation. No delays should be countenanced.
The Commissioner referred to the four Tampere principles in connection with asylum and immigration policy. I firmly believe these principles are valid. I am also convinced that the Commission’s proposals go some way to setting the right course for them. Nonetheless, I have the distinct impression that a degree of confusion still prevails five years on and almost at the end of the Tampere mandate.
The expression ‘flow management’ should refer to legal entry to work and reside in the European Union. In Council jargon, it is now used to refer to the fight against illegal immigration. The concept of management of legal flows has ceased to exist. At present, the Council is not even in a position to engage in debate on entry and residence for work purposes, though this is the crux of the issue.
The tone of discussions in Council is becoming increasingly exacerbated. If this continues, and the notion of combating continues to be associated with the words immigration and illegal, the result will inevitably be more frustration for the citizens. It is essential to demonstrate the ability to lay down consistent guidelines for the management of immigration in its broadest sense in the twenty-first century. A convincing response must be provided.
Issues concerning legal entry and entry routes have to be tackled. So too should the integration of those who have been living in our midst for years but are still perceived as immigrants. Further, it is essential to develop a new relationship with the third countries involved. Such a relationship should not centre on readmission to the exclusion of all else. Rather, it should consist of a broad set of measures designed to ensure that immigration has a beneficial outcome for both the countries of origin and the host countries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples