Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-27-Speech-3-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050427.13.3-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen.
As we have just heard, enlargement of the European Union has highlighted the issue of the EU’s visa policy in a new way. Citizens of quite a few of the new Member States require visas to travel to the United States, in spite of the fact that American citizens do not need visas to travel to the new Member States. In these cases, there is a breach of reciprocity between the countries. It is easy to understand why people assume that the EU should make vigorous efforts to promote freedom of movement, especially since visa policy is harmonised and falls completely within the Commission’s area of competence. The Commission should therefore act as an ice-breaker.
A few months ago, Poland’s former President, Lech Walesa, spent the night in a tent outside the White House in Washington in protest against the American visa requirement – a good example of just how loaded the issue is. The EU has a weapon for cases such as this, namely the reciprocity mechanism. For example, Poland and Greece can issue a notification to the Commission to the effect that, in their cases, reciprocity is not being respected by the United States. Finland can do the same in connection with Venezuela, etc. A notification should lead to the whole of the EU introducing a visa requirement for citizens of the third country concerned, but the mechanism has not been used even once because the consequences have been regarded as too far-reaching and difficult to deal with.
My report, which has been approved by the committee responsible, proposes that the Commission should have a wider range of tools at its disposal. The EU should have recourse to other sanctions and not just automatically introduce a visa requirement. The report gives the individual Member States three months – a longer period than that proposed by the Commission – in which to negotiate with the third country. Moreover, I propose more stringency once the Commission has taken over the matter. It must not be possible to delay decisions concerning sanctions. Citizens of the Member State concerned must have a guarantee that their cases will be referred to the highest level and that this will result in a decision. A very broad majority of the committee was in favour of this policy. A number of MEPs preferred the present mechanism, however, and considered that it would make for a better result. I myself believe that the report’s recommendations will lead to greater efficiency and better results, strengthen the Commission’s negotiating position in respect of third countries and, through the European Parliament’s involvement, give people more insight into the process.
The report also has a new element, and one that I believe the Commission and the Council should ponder carefully. There are countless cases, mainly at the EU’s eastern border, in which a third country has, with very little warning, tightened up the conditions for issuing visas. There are examples of travellers being required to have travel insurances with only Russian insurance companies. Lithuanian motorists have been required to have special motor insurances in order to be able to drive over to Kaliningrad, and they have had to register with the local authorities within three days. In the same week that a shipping company was to begin operating ferries to Saint Petersburg, the visa rules were altered, with the result that the shipping company had to withdraw the service. Our students at Russian universities are not automatically given a visa for a year, and anyone who has his or her visa stolen ends up on an exorbitantly expensive bureaucratic merry-go-round. To give just one example: even small children have to present the results of an HIV test in order to obtain a Russian long-term visa.
From a Brussels perspective, these issues may appear trivial, but they cause a lot of inconvenience and financial losses for those affected. A very large majority of the committee believed that the Member States should be able to refer such cases to the Commission if the requirements introduced led to substantial limitations upon people’s opportunities to travel. In actual fact, these cases almost always involve a lack of reciprocity. Because the EU has to operate in the interests of our citizens, it is, as Commissioner Frattini asserts, extremely important that these problems be taken seriously, even though they may appear less serious than the main issue of whether or not there is a visa requirement.
When Parliament – presumably with a clear majority – now approves the report, this will be a clear signal to the Commission and the Council of Ministers to begin outlining a mechanism that takes account of people’s everyday needs when there are visa requirements. My report contains a proposal that may serve as a point of departure. If this matter had been brought to our attention at the beginning of the year, the codecision procedure would have applied. In spite of the fact that the consultation procedure is now being applied, the Council and the Commission have cause to ponder the significance of the fact that account is being taken of Parliament’s amendment. What is also important is that the Commission quickly initiate a review of the consular instructions so that the common visa rules are applied in the same way in all the Member States. The furore surrounding Germany’s Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, emphasises the need for this.
In saying that, I still wish to thank all those who have helped with the work, including my fellow MEPs and the Commission’s and Parliament’s officials. I am looking forward to the debate that is now to follow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples