Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-14-Speech-3-269"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070214.21.3-269"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Parliament debated the agreements on facilitating visas and the readmission of illegal immigrants concluded between the EU and the Russian Federation. With the active intervention of most of the committee members and with the special help of Mr Lax, Mr Vatanen and Mrs Roure, whom I wish to thank, the debate was far from routine. It was a troubled debate because the Russian Federation’s political landscape, and its difficult relationship with democracy and human rights, was never far from people's thoughts.
Firstly, Parliament was only consulted when it was no longer possible to influence the content of the agreements. The Commission and the Council need to bring these agreements to us at an earlier stage, as part of the institutional cooperation laid down in the Treaties. We know that the still intergovernmental nature of the Union’s external policy does not accord us all of the powers of a true Parliament. The day will come when it does, once the European Constitution crisis is over.
The wording of the agreements, and the political landscape surrounding them, raises a number of questions for Parliament to address. The agreement on the facilitation of issuance of visas does not guarantee genuine reciprocity between the EU and the Russian Federation, either with its wording or in terms of the way in which events are predicted to happen. Obtaining visas in the Russian Federation is a dreadfully complex process: mandatory registration on every journey within Russia, surcharges, additional permits, in particular for travel to Chechnya and certain parts of Eastern Russia, invitations for admission, which are conducive to corruption, bureaucratic obstacles; in short, one hurdle after another. As we all know, simplifying visas in Russia involves a veil of uncertainty. What Parliament would like and expects to see is strong commitment on the part of the Commission and the Council to lobby the Russian authorities.
In spite of all the difficulties, Parliament welcomes the spirit of openness that the visa facilitation arrangements will bring to relations between our peoples. It is the kind of openness needed for a new Europe, for a broader Europe, for that justice on a broad scale that we all want to build. The agreements on the readmission of immigrants also aroused passionate debate in the Committee on Civil Liberties. We rejected the simplistic and dangerous classification of this agreement as being a merely technical agreement; an agreement dealing with people is, by definition, never technical, and this is particularly true of those on illegal immigrants, which brings to life the human misery of poverty and social exclusion. The misfortune of some affects us all. If there is one area in which guarantees of human rights can be vulnerable it is precisely in this area of immigration.
Parliament is concerned precisely about the guarantees of human rights in the accelerated readmission procedure and about respect for the status in international law of asylum seekers and stateless persons. The speed of the procedure is not a value; people's dignity throughout the process is a value, which must be characterised by rights during the ordeal of illegal immigration, namely the right to defence, humane treatment in detention, family unity, and physical and psychological inviolability. This is why the Joint Readmission Committee, which the agreement mentions, must include a human rights monitoring component, by which I mean active monitoring, because this is Europe's identity – it is what defines Europe. Human rights are the only criterion by which compliance with the agreements and the good faith of the parties can be measured.
Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, a political act is always conditioned by circumstances, and in this case the circumstance is the EU looking for its own energy and a Russian Federation stubbornly refusing to sign essential declarations on human rights. Yet the Union’s silence on this matter would be tantamount to a negation of its culture of rights. The Union must not silence this culture. In any part of the world
must not endlessly challenge our ideals. A joint compromise declaration by the Council and the Commission, such as the one that is promised and that accompanies Parliament’s decision, is the most important step that we have taken today. Is it a small step or giant leap? The answer lies with the ethical conscience of the main players – only time will tell.
Mr President, I was expecting to have less time to speak, so now I shall give more time to the other speakers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples