Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-10-Speech-2-485-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110510.63.2-485-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, let us be very open and blunt about this: what we have seen in recent weeks on this issue has been shameful – Italy issuing temporary residence permits to refugees from Tunisia, then France reacting by reintroducing internal border checks, as if the European Union had suddenly ceased to exist.
Let us be very open and call this by its name: it was a ping-pong game by two governments, and by Berlusconi and Sarkozy, on the back of refugees who are, in fact, in trouble. That is what has been happening and, in my opinion, it has been disastrous not only for Schengen but also for the European Union and its image because the reintroduction of internal border checks contradicts the whole essence of the Union and the basic principles of the Treaty. That point has been made several times here and Mr Barroso has also made it.
Moreover, what occurred was absolutely out of proportion. I would not go so far as to echo Mr Schulz in calling this a marginal problem – 27 000 Tunisians do not constitute a marginal problem – but he is right to say that, by comparison with, for example, the 350 000 people who fled from Kosovo during the Kosovo war, we are clearly not talking about a migration tsunami.
And so we come to the problem: the communication from the Commission. In my opinion, it was not very clear. The communication states that, as a last resort in truly critical situations, a mechanism may need to be introduced – and, as I read it, that means a new mechanism – allowing for a coordinated and temporary reintroduction of controls.
That is the problem with the whole communication because, if this means that the Commission is proposing an additional possibility for the reintroduction of border controls, not provided for in the existing Schengen acquis, I can tell you that our Group will fight such a proposal with all available means, and I hope the entire Parliament will do likewise.
If, on the contrary, the sentence in question means that the Commission wants to restrict the current provision, then that has been foreseen: national security and public order are the two elements covered by the existing Schengen acquis.
If the intended meaning is that the Commission wants to restrict the current provision allowing Member States to reintroduce border controls, then, Mr Barroso, you can have 100% support from our Group.
So, what I am asking of Ms Malmström and Mr Barroso is a rewriting of the communication and specifically of the sentence which states that a new mechanism shall be introduced for the reintroduction of border checks. All they need to do is to state that they will strengthen the existing provision in the Schengen acquis."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples