Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-13-Speech-1-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101213.16.1-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, speaking on behalf of the EPP Group, we look at visa facilitation and visa liberalisation policy very positively, because we think that this is a very positive instrument with which to deal with third countries, especially those countries that lie in our near neighbourhood. So our initial outlook is clearly positive.
Visa facilitation is the first step, and this week we are giving it to Georgia. It is a first step, but it is an important step in what my colleague, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, has called people-to-people contact. Visa facilitation normally goes together with readmission agreements. Madam Commissioner, we also attach a great deal of importance to readmission agreements because we want to make sure that people who are illegally staying in EU territory are asked to leave. This is the only way in which we can win public trust for visa facilitation and eventual visa liberalisation. The two go together, so we ask you to work harder to increase the network of readmission agreements that we have with third countries.
As for visa liberalisation, we did this last year for Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro. It is good to see that our friends from Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina are now going to benefit from it, too. We wholeheartedly accept this and feel that this is a very good step towards further European integration and certainly to bring the citizens of these countries closer to us.
When we decide on these dossiers, we are always very careful to take a decision which is not political but is primarily taken on technical grounds – i.e. countries must first fulfil technical criteria before they get our positive decision. A decision would also, of course, be political, but it must rely primarily on technical assessments.
I emphasise this because it is mostly up to the Commission to come to us and say that a particular country has passed the technical criteria. Therefore, when we have cases of abuse with people coming from a visa liberalisation country, such as Serbia or Macedonia, and asking for asylum in EU countries, we have to ask whether the technical assessment has been carried out fully and correctly, because it is clearly not compatible with visa liberalisation to have someone coming to the European Union and asking for asylum. This tells us that something, somewhere, has gone wrong. It is legitimate for us to ask what went wrong and to get a reply.
Finally, we must take this opportunity to send a clear message to the countries involved – especially those such as Serbia and Macedonia involved in cases of abuse – that they should clearly tell their citizens what visa liberalisation is all about. It is not about going to EU countries to settle there or to find work, but it is a simple visa waiver for a limited period of time – simply for a visit. This applies to the European Commission too. It is important for the Commission to work hand-in-hand with these countries to make sure that this message gets through."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples