Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-27-Speech-3-016"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20060927.3.3-016"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has been in favour of these topics becoming part of Community procedure ever since the Treaty of Maastricht invented the pillar system, which in theory was only meant to be temporary but in reality has proved to be fairly definitive. Procedures are not everything, however, and I wonder what policy will now be implemented on these topics by Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The priority seems to be that of reducing, rejecting, constraining and eliminating, and it is curious to note that this debate began with the Commissioner speaking about terrorism and maintaining that security must be our top priority. I believe that this speaks volumes, not least about what many of our leaders think constitutes a priority. Despite the borders, the terrible risks, and the ever-increasing tolerance of violations of international law, we will not succeed in stopping immigration, and that has to be a point on which we are all quite clear. Frankly, Commissioner, I do not like it when you overuse the word ‘solidarity’, especially when you mean ‘helping the Member States to refuse entry at the borders to people who arrive in a desperate state, without any rights’. I should also like to point out that, by adopting this approach, we have by no means eliminated the risk that, if we refuse entry at the borders to people arriving by boat, we will be seriously breaching the right of many of them to seek asylum, insofar as they are being sent straight back to the place from which they came. Mass legalisations, which are condemned not only by Mrs Klamt, but also by Mr Frattini, are a direct result of the policy that says ‘zero immigration is possible’, but that actually hides a reality, namely that we need immigrants. Mr Frattini, Mr Rajamäki, I do not know whether it is true that the majority of the illegal immigrants who come to our countries have no qualifications. I know of cases of history teachers and electricians: qualified people who come here but who cannot find jobs for qualified workers, because they obviously become mixed up with people who have no qualifications whatsoever; in my opinion, saying that the problem is one of depriving developing countries of people who can, instead, help those countries to get out of their underdeveloped state is the wrong message for the European Union to be sending out. Finally, Mr Rajamäki, Mr Frattini, I should like it if you could give your ideas on the topic of agreements with third countries. My group and I are very concerned about this issue; we know that some of the Member States, such as France, Spain and Italy, are using understandings between police forces to secretly negotiate agreements with third countries that give no guarantees whatsoever regarding respect for people’s rights; we know full well that those countries very often deliberately violate the rights not only of their own citizens, but also of migrants. This is particularly true of Libya, to which Mr Frattini has just stated his desire to donate a large sum of money. Personally, I should like it if he were to spend a little time explaining what kind of democracy and publicity is required for agreements such as this one."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph