Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-20-Speech-1-085"

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	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100920.18.1-085"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-09-20-Speech-1-0862
lpv:speaker	lp:Dennis de Jong2
lpv:spokenAs	member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2011-09-11)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (2009-10-08--2011-07-31)3 substitute; IMCO (2009-07-16--2011-09-11)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Socialistische Partij (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; CONT (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (2010-06-17--2011-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left opposes the proposed readmission agreement with Pakistan. It is the wrong instrument at the wrong time. According to the United Nations, Pakistan’s infrastructure – roads, railway lines, bridges and so on – has been so severely affected by the flooding as to revert to the condition it was in decades ago. In Pakistan, millions of people are fleeing the water or are finding on their return that nothing remains of what they once owned. One would have thought that, under these circumstances, Europe’s main concern would be to help people. Therefore, I find it distasteful to note that, now of all times, we are being required to take a decision on a readmission agreement that will inevitably mean that Europe is able to send back to Pakistan illegal asylum seekers and those whose applications have been rejected. Is this an example of the community of values on which the European Union prides itself? In addition, the agreement lacks sufficient human rights safeguards. Pakistan is not a stable country at present. Therefore, my question to the Commission, and indeed also to the Council, is as follows. What is the basis for your confidence that Pakistan – which has not, in fact, ratified the Geneva Convention but nevertheless welcomes large numbers of refugees – will really offer refugees protection under the present circumstances? One would expect the agreement to contain safeguards that do justice to the responsibilities countries take on when deporting a person to another country. The only thing we have really heard about this is that the European Commission is to ensure that Member States meet their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. Yet my question to the Commissioner is as follows. How does the Commission intend to do this? Will you send officials along to Pakistan when people are put on an aeroplane, and how long will you continue to monitor the fate of these people – or will you just present us with a report when it is already too late for them? The agreement contains too few safeguards, and comes at exactly the wrong time. Therefore, the verdict of my group is that this should be swept off the table."@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