Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-27-Speech-3-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050427.13.3-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the reciprocity mechanism that has applied to date under the European Union’s visa policy meant that extremely harsh sanctions could be imposed on third countries if a country reported that the mandatory use of visas was placing them at a disadvantage. On 7 July 2004, after the ten new Member States had joined the EU, the Commission relaxed the rules contained in this regulation in such a way as to do away with the reciprocity mechanism that had featured in the draft regulation. This resulted in an absurd situation whereby 9 of the 10 new Member States were forced to accept citizens of third countries, for example the USA, without visas, whilst citizens of the Member States in question needed visas to travel to these third countries. I believe that Mr Lax has drafted what is, on the whole, an excellent report, but although this report introduces a number of additional procedures and deadlines that can be enforced by diplomatic means, it does not oblige the Council or the Commission to impose more stringent sanctions. The report leaves it up to the Commission to decide whether to introduce mandatory visas for the citizens of a third country or to impose other, much less effective, measures. In my opinion, allowing the Commission to decide in this way shows a lack of resolve, and would mean inadequate protection for the citizens of the new Member States. Such an approach would send out a clear signal that mutual solidarity between EU Member States and towards third countries has been thin on the ground since the accession of the new Member States. Since the latter joined the EU, dual standards have been applied, with one mechanism for the 15 old Member States and another, in which solidarity is rather less apparent, for the EU of 25. The end result of this is that the difference in status between the citizens of the new and the old EU has become even more pronounced, as citizens of the new Member States are subject to additional restrictions when travelling outside the EU. In view of all this, I find it astonishing that people can talk of a new concept of European citizenship, when some of the EU’s citizens will enjoy entirely different rights and duties to the rest, who are regarded as less worthy.
Seen from the new Member States’ point of view, the costs of enlargement have outweighed the benefits by far. We were obliged to bring our legislation into line with the EU’s visa policy, which proved extremely expensive, and to introduce visas for our eastern neighbours. The benefits we have derived, however, have been few and far between. We are still unable to issue Schengen visas, and we cannot count on the EU’s help as far as visa reciprocity is concerned. Furthermore, the EU Member States demanding that we implement the common visa policy are the very ones that are experiencing problems with the implementation of this policy, for example Germany.
Commissioner Frattini, I should like to make it known that if the amended mechanism comes into force, we will insist on the Commission discharging the duties incumbent upon it. I should also like to receive a clear answer to the question of whether we can expect the Commission to present an action plan setting out clearly defined deadlines for the achievement of objectives relating to the abolition of visas for travel into the USA, and using the Schengen assessments of the new Member States as a frame of reference. This would be in the vital interests of all the citizens of the new Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples