Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-20-Speech-1-077"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-09-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Agreement between the EC and Pakistan on readmission - Community readmission agreements with third countries (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100920.18.1-077"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-09-20-Speech-1-0782
lpv:speaker	lp:Rui Tavares2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2011-06-23)3 unknown; Bloco de Esquerda (Independente) (2009-07-14--2011-06-29)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2011-06-23)3 substitute; CULT (2009-07-16--2011-06-23)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, concerning this readmission agreement with Pakistan, I believe that there are a number of different areas of analysis that should be considered at this time. Firstly, since it is the first agreement of this kind on which Parliament has voted since the Treaty of Lisbon, I feel it could set a precedent. I therefore believe that when this sort of agreement is on the table, it must be subject to much more detailed and in-depth parliamentary scrutiny. I am therefore of the opinion that Parliament would be well advised to voice its doubts and, in particular, to hope for much greater clarification. It is also to be hoped that, when future agreements similar to those currently on the table come to be adopted by Parliament, they will include far greater provision for monitoring and verifying the burden of proof, which must fall on the right people: the authorities, and not immigrants, the poor or refugees. I also have serious doubts about this agreement, owing to the fact that it is with Pakistan. Firstly, there is the question of this being an agreement not on the readmission of Pakistanis, but rather an agreement for the readmission of Afghans by the back door. As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, this is clearly a country that is not a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention and the European Union cannot be of two minds on this subject. Either, by complying with the conventions we have signed, we respect human rights 100%, or we do not respect them in 90% or 80% of cases, deputising people who may not respect human rights. There are many cases of deportation and persecution of Pakistani women and religious and ethic minorities and we certainly cannot work with the Pakistani authorities’ lack of transparency on this subject. Lastly, I would like to summarise by recalling that only two weeks ago, we were discussing the floods in Pakistan. They have caused the displacement of 21 million people, including refugees and the injured, as well as many thousands of dead. I believe that the European Parliament is demonstrating a certain indifference when, just two weeks later, it is about to adopt an agreement which basically entails sending back to Pakistan people who have fled a situation as serious as that currently being experienced there."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph