Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.1.3-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you have said, despite all our efforts the Tampere agenda will not be complied with, especially on the matter of immigration and asylum. But we will only find an effective answer to these questions, be it in Sangatte or Algeciras, by having a genuine Community policy that respects basic rights, not by always being repressive.
A lot of Commission proposals are currently pending in the Council. The few measures that have been taken are constantly criticised and the directive on family reunification is the subject of an action by our Parliament before the Court of Justice.
On this question of emigration, I would simply ask you to follow the train of thought developed before our Parliament by Kofi Annan. Not only does our old continent need these workers, but the only way we will have credibility in the world is by affirming an open, pluralist Europe that shows solidarity. Immigration is an opportunity for Europe’s future and at a time when racism and xenophobia are swooping down on us we need to say that strongly and forcefully. We are convinced that freedom of movement together with a positive policy of legal immigration will enable us to apply the brake to trafficking, especially trafficking in human beings. We will then be better placed to devote ourselves to building a citizenship in which all who live on our continent will be able to participate fully, with equal rights respected – not to mention the fact that such a voluntarist policy will also alleviate the burden on us as regards both asylum systems and fighting illegal immigration.
It will not yet be possible to adopt the two asylum directives, on the status of refugees and asylum procedures, despite the December deadline that was set and has now passed. But we know it is essential that they should be adopted to round off the first phase of the Tampere programme. Having said that, those two directives must also and in particular bring an added value capable of guaranteeing asylum seekers a better level of protection.
So far as police and judicial cooperation is concerned, I would like to dwell on just one point, that of personal data, biometric data in particular. In a communication on the transfer of data, published by the Commission on 16 December and forwarded to the Council and the Parliament, concerning the agreement concluded between the United States and ourselves, we find a security gaffe under the cover of the fight against terrorism and crime. The agreement would in fact allow the data fields transferred to include date of birth, number of persons travelling together, credit card details, racial or ethnic origin and political, religious or philosophical beliefs. But that is a serious attack on the protection of private life. What can be done about it? When we know that such information can be used as a means of discrimination, that provision also affects our basic freedoms, especially since we do not know exactly who will have access to the data. We can only be concerned about the uses to which it will be put.
In this connection, did you know that, under pressure from the United States, in particular threats to ban flights, airlines are already transferring personal data to the US authorities without the consent of the persons concerned? Such action is contrary to European law and the Commission is supposed to be the guardian of the Treaties.
Such measures affect both Europeans and third country nationals, as you said, Mr Vitorino. That agreement was nevertheless concluded without any prior democratic debate. It is therefore democracy and the rule of law that are threatened by the conclusion of such agreements. Should a genuinely independent European control body not be set up as a matter of urgency to prevent such data being abused? And do you not think that the Court of Justice should also be asked to rule on the legality of that agreement? We must be vigilant because security is taking precedence over respect for our rights and our freedoms.
Finally and to conclude, how are we going to be able to guarantee respect for our fundamental rights if we sign an agreement with a country like the United States, which is constantly showing its desire for hegemony, conducts a unilateral policy and puts itself above the law, including above international law, as in the situation of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?
I would be grateful, Commissioner, if you would exercise the utmost vigilance with regard to all these treaties."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples