speaker_name
stringlengths 0
148
| speaker_role
stringclasses 7
values | speaker_party
stringclasses 9
values | intervention_language
stringclasses 22
values | original_language
stringclasses 27
values | date
timestamp[ms]date 2009-07-14 00:00:00
2023-09-14 00:00:00
| year
stringdate 2009-01-01 00:00:00
2023-01-01 00:00:00
| debate_title
stringlengths 5
666
| text
stringlengths 7
50.5k
| translated_text
stringlengths 9
36.6k
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pat the Cope Gallagher
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
ga
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, which will be held in Ireland on the second day of October this year, will be one of the most important events to occur during the period of the Swedish Presidency. Ireland has received legal guarantees in a range of policy areas and this is helping greatly to alleviate the concerns that the people of Ireland had in the referendum last year. Now, it is incumbent on those of us who believe that a vote in favour of the Treaty will be to the benefit of Ireland to work to progress this new arrangement in my country. If the Treaty of Lisbon succeeds − and I hope that the referendum will be passed − the various countries will be able to nominate a member to the Commission. Those in favour of the Treaty cannot afford to be complacent in any way. We must do our utmost to ensure its success. (The President cut off the speaker)
| null |
Jacek Protasiewicz,
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would very much like to thank Prime Minister Reinfeld for including in his priorities the need to develop cooperation with our Eastern neighbours. I would also like to thank him for Sweden’s engagement in development of the Eastern Partnership. In this context I would like to point out that in the next six months, we as the European Union and Sweden as the Presidency will have to face up to problems relating to the disregard of human rights in Belarus. For six months now, three entrepreneurs, Mr Avtukhowich, Mr Leonov and Mr Osipienko, have been held in detention and have not been able to obtain a just verdict. Of 12 young activists who took part in a demonstration in January 2008, 11 were given custodial sentences, and several days ago one was sentenced to a year in prison. Prime Minister, in the next six months please pay attention to the question of breaches of human rights in Belarus.
| null |
Fredrik Reinfeldt
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I hope I can return a little of the time I borrowed earlier. (The President briefly cut off the speaker) I know that you are waiting for a vote. Allow me to thank you for having represented your respective party groups very well. I note your eagerness and the expectations that there are of the Swedish Presidency, your desire for us to be more of a driving force in climate negotiations and to take action to combat the financial crisis and economic recession. You have noted our Baltic Sea Strategy, our Stockholm Programme, our continued efforts to drive forward the matter of enlargement, and I would like to thank you all for the support we are experiencing in this. I also know that the transition to the Treaty of Lisbon will mean that we meet again, and that we have a great deal to do together this autumn. A number of the ministers in my cabinet are here with me today. We have noted and carefully followed your questions and views. I hope that we will cooperate closely and I hope to see you again in the autumn.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
We also count on constant discussion and keeping in contact with the Presidency. It is very important for the European Parliament. It is the beginning of our term of office and we must do many things, and this is a very good starting point: the Swedish Presidency. Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I would also like to thank the President of the European Commission. (Applause) The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 149)
| null |
Bairbre de Brún
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
ga
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
I welcome the Swedish Presidency’s proposal to focus on questions of policy instead of constitutional questions during its presidency. However, the Council has decided to ignore the democratically expressed will of the Irish people, and they have made a decision to force the Treaty of Lisbon through. Unfortunately, the policy framework that they are pursuing is the same failed agenda of deregulation and liberalisation. This is not the appropriate response to the economic crisis. The complete opposite is the case, namely that it is a continuation of the same policies that instigated the crisis, and it is these same policies that are being further strengthened in the Treaty of Lisbon. We are told that we need the Treaty of Lisbon because it has been long years in the making. But the Treaty of Lisbon was drafted and agreed before the economic crisis, and is based on policies that helped to ignite the crisis. To force through those outdated policies now would be disastrous, for it would make the crisis worse. There is a need for new policies for a new era. There is a need for a new Treaty for a new era. As far as climate change is concerned, it is important that the Swedish Presidency does its best to achieve a robust deal in Copenhagen.
| null |
Diane Dodds
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The incoming Swedish Presidency has many challenges but the greatest is the need to ensure that the EU respects the sovereignty of the Member States and does not ride roughshod over the democratic rights of the peoples of Europe. Far too often the concerns and interests of our peoples are ignored in the headlong rush to advance the federalist agenda exemplified in the Lisbon Treaty. Looking to changes ahead, the preparations for the reform of the common agricultural policy in 2013 will be an issue during this Presidency. The voice of areas heavily dependent on farming, like Northern Ireland, must be heard during those discussions and in the debate on reform of fisheries policy. We have a great duty to help and protect our constituents at this time of great financial turbulence. The EU must not put further obstacles in the way of economic growth and stability.
| null |
Ilda Figueiredo
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The anti-social programme of the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union represents a dangerous step forward in the expansion of neoliberal policies. It reflects the relentless pursuit of these policies, despite all the evidence, by the leaders of capitalism in the European Union, who are forgetting that their policies are the main cause of the economic and social crisis. Although, in the presentation of its programme, the Swedish Presidency did refer to people and the problems of unemployment, it did not mention a single measure to change the existing policies which have caused these problems. Quite the contrary. In particular it highlighted the policy of free competition in the widest range of areas, including in services and foreign trade. It has gambled everything on the recovery of the financial markets, on the resumption of the paradigms of the Stability Pact and on the defence of neoliberalism, which will certainly result in new attacks on social and labour rights. It also did not forget to insist on a new referendum in Ireland on the draft Treaty of Lisbon, already planned for 2 October, in a continuation of the blackmail of the Irish people in order to move forward more quickly with the destruction of public services and the reduction of social rights, including in the areas of social security, health, water, social protection and workers’ rights. It is not difficult to predict that it will submit new proposals for directives, which will try to adopt the same lines as those proposals that were rejected in the previous legislative term.
| null |
Lívia Járóka
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
I welcome the incoming Presidency and would like to express the hope that as the third member of the Council troika, Sweden will continue the work which was started during the Czech and French Presidencies in the area of Roma social integration. There were many factors which hampered the outgoing Czech Presidency’s work, but the overall picture in terms of Roma issues is nevertheless positive. In fact, the Roma Platform held its first meeting in April in Prague, while, in June, the European Council strengthened its general objectives in terms of offering Roma equal opportunities by calling on the Commission and Member States to combat the poverty and social exclusion affecting Roma. In the same document the Council adopted the common basic principles set out in Prague for achieving Roma social integration, with a call to public policy-makers to take these principles into consideration and comply with them. Based on the results achieved by the troika so far, I hope that the Swedish Presidency will at least focus greater attention than before on Roma issues. For example, I hope that the forthcoming conference on the inclusive labour market to be held in October and the Equal Opportunities Summit due to take place in November will deal with the issue of Europe’s largest minority as a main priority. Indeed, in terms of population size, it is considerably larger than the population living in the Baltic region, designated as a priority by this Presidency. I also hope that the Swedish Presidency will go beyond the theoretical approaches already adopted and the organisational issues decided and start to take specific actions, thereby actually putting these frameworks into practice.
| null |
Marian-Jean Marinescu
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
ro
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The Stockholm Programme, which is a priority for the Swedish Presidency, must provide support in reinforcing the area of freedom, security and justice, as well as in promoting economic activity during the current crisis, especially in view of the possibility of the Treaty of Lisbon coming into force. The success of the Stockholm Programme will help make Europe more accessible to its citizens. This success will be reflected in the enforcement of the right of freedom of movement for all European citizens and the comprehensive implementation of the mutual recognition principle in civil and criminal matters at EU level. The Swedish Presidency must continue the efforts of the French and Czech Presidencies, whose priorities were to provide all workers in the EU with complete access to the Community’s labour market, a freedom which is most symbolic of European citizenship. In order to do this, Member States must actively participate through concrete actions in abolishing the virtual borders inside the EU which are detrimental to citizens’ freedom of movement, as they encounter administrative and legal difficulties when they live and work in another Member State. The freedom of movement must be a reality for all EU citizens, especially during a time of economic crisis, which highlights the need to promote unrestricted mobility among the workforce. This mobility can be self-regulating and ensure flexibility, as well as reduce the amount of undeclared work and the natural unemployment rate.
| null |
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
ro
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The EU is facing huge challenges nowadays: the economic and financial crisis, the alarming rise in unemployment and climate change. The unemployment rate in the EU is 8.9% at the moment, while 19% of young people under the age of 16 and 19% of elderly people are exposed to the risk of poverty. People are losing their jobs, many businesses are going bankrupt, while national budgets are in major deficit. The EU’s Swedish Presidency has a huge responsibility towards its citizens. It must restore their hope of a decent living and lay the foundations for economic recovery by getting everyone to pull together. Such measures as increasing energy efficiency, using energy from renewable sources and improving the EU’s energy security feature among the Swedish Presidency’s priorities. I hope that the EU’s Swedish Presidency will mark the start of an age of prosperity, guaranteeing a period of economic growth for the next 40-50 years. I believe that, now more than ever, we need to invest in education, research, energy efficiency and, above all, in people. Sweden is renowned for its social policies and high standard of living. This is why I would like, along with my fellow Members in the European Parliament and every citizen in Europe, to wish you every success, and we hope that this term will provide the springboard to a new future.
| null |
Georgios Toussas
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
el
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation of the work programme of the Swedish Presidency (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The priorities of the Swedish Presidency mark an escalation in the anti-grassroots attack by the EU, the aim of which is to safeguard the ongoing profitability of euro-unifying capital by shifting the burden of the capitalist recession on to the working class and grassroots classes. The Swedish Presidency is seeking to speed up capitalist restructurings, within the framework of the Lisbon Strategy. At the epicentre of this anti-labour attack are wage and pension cuts, the complete demolition of labour relations, workers’ rights and social protection and insurance systems and even greater commercialisation of health and education. The ‘green economy’ is being designed so that, on the pretext of combating climate change, new profitable sectors of activity can be opened up for capital. The Stockholm programme is endeavouring, in the name of combating terrorism and organised crime, to reinforce the bourgeois political system still further, so that they can combat grassroots reactions and step up repressive measures against immigrants. The strategy on the Baltic has paved the way for a more aggressive approach by the euro-unifying monopolies in the countries on the eastern borders of the ΕU, in a bid to strengthen their position in the imperialist competition. Using ‘guarantees’ as a smoke screen and blatant coercion, they are trying to grab the Irish vote in order to implement the anti-grassroots Treaty of Lisbon.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on Iran.
| null |
Carl Bildt
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it is an honour to be able to stand here for the first time. I expect to be here numerous times during the coming six months to address different issues. The issue on our agenda at this time is Iran. Before going into the substance of that issue, let me just express our heartfelt condolences to Iran on the occasion of the tragic accident earlier today. We sincerely regret the loss of life and express our sympathy with all of those affected by this tragedy. The issue of Iran is obviously very high up on the Swedish Presidency’s agenda. That has to do with the outcome of the election and the question marks – to put it very mildly – that were raised after that election, as well as the political developments that we have seen since then. I think you are all aware of the fact that the European Union has taken a very strong and a very principled stand when it comes to these events. We have reiterated that questions over the conduct of elections are issues for the Iranian authorities to truly investigate and clarify. We have also been very clear in our response to what we have seen happening on the streets of Tehran. We have condemned the crackdown, the violence and the use of force that we have seen against peaceful demonstrations; we condemn the crackdown against journalists, media outlets, communications and protestors. Those are contrary not only to the norms and values that we represent but also, obviously, to the wishes for a more open and more reform-oriented society expressed by so many Iranians. That being said, we remain in our principled policy of wishing another, a better, a new relationship with the nation of Iran. It is a rich nation that has much to contribute to the development of the world and the development of its own region, and we would hope that at some point in time – hopefully not too distant – there will be that possibility for a truly new relationship. Before concluding, let me just note one issue that has been occupying us quite a lot, and that is that the Iranian authorities did detain a number of personalities who are staff members of European missions, as well as some European nationals. We have been in constant touch with the Iranian authorities over these issues. We consider possible accusations levelled against them to be baseless, and I can assure you that we will continue to engage with the Iranian authorities in all the ways we can until these issues are resolved in a satisfactory manner – that is, that the persons in question are released.
| null |
Catherine Ashton
|
EU Commissioner
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, this is my first opportunity to congratulate all the honourable Members on their election to the new European Parliament. I can say, on behalf of the Commission, that we very much look forward to a constructive cooperation with you, including of course on some of the most pressing international challenges that we face, and the subject of today’s debate is certainly one of those. My colleague Benita Ferrero-Waldner is travelling this week and so I have offered and have been delighted to be able to speak on her behalf in Parliament today. This Parliament plays an important part in maintaining and developing relations between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Exchange visits between Parliament’s Iran delegation and members of the Majlis have already played an important role in increasing mutual understanding. Parliament has also played its part in setting up several instruments that serve as an important basis for EU activities in Iran, and we in the Commission hope to continue to make good use of these in the years ahead. Today’s debate was prompted by the recent Iranian presidential elections and the subsequent events. While, as the Presidency has said, the evolution of Iran’s politics and policies are chiefly a matter for the citizens of Iran, there can be no doubt of the broader significance, and it is right that we should follow these developments closely. The European Union has taken very clear positions on the situation in Iran following the presidential elections and has remained united in these positions. We have expressed full respect for the sovereignty of Iran, but have stressed our deep concern about the post-election violence, as we would when lives are lost or rights are put at risk in any country. Allegations of European interference in the Iranian elections or any involvement in the protests which followed are unfounded. However, suppression of peaceful demonstrations, arbitrary detentions and severe censorship of the media constitute violations of human rights which cannot be considered matters confined to the domestic affairs of any country. In spite of the current delicate situation in Iran, the Commission believes strongly in maintaining a dialogue. That was the case before the elections, and it remains the case now. The European Union and Iran have many common and pressing interests, including the fight against drug trafficking and support to Afghan refugees. These demand our continued attention and cooperation, and we hope that Iran will share this view. The Commission continues to search for ways to deploy Community instruments in constructive activities in Iran. We can increase mutual understanding by continuing, for instance, our cooperation through Erasmus Mundus academic exchanges. We are convinced that the European Union should keep all available channels of communication open with Iran. We should strive for engagement with Iran at all levels. When possible and prudent, we stand ready to continue and expand cooperation in the future. Our present differences with the Government of Iran are many; some are very serious. We call on the Government of Iran to join us in trying to find solutions to our differences through dialogue. It is only through discussing the challenges that lie between us in a spirit of mutual respect that we can hope to overcome them. Europe has never closed the door to such discussions, and it remains open today. Finally, I join with the Presidency in expressing condolences to the families of Iranians and Armenians involved in the tragedy of the plane crash today.
| null |
Jacek Saryusz-Wolski
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I want to reflect the tone of the debate in the extraordinary meeting of the outgoing Committee on Foreign Affairs, which met last Wednesday because there was no time to convene the new committee. Everyone knows the facts all too well, so I will not dwell on that. The Union has a duty to stress the universality of human rights, to follow up human rights violations in Iran very closely and to take Iran to task for the brutality and violence. Last week we, in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Delegation for relations with Iran, met with representatives of the civil society of Iran, and these are aspects that seem to us extremely important. We fully endorse the statements and positions taken so far by the Presidency, Council and Commission, but we are also asking the Council to ensure that EU Member States and their ambassadors in Tehran are fully complying with EU guidelines on human rights defenders and on the prevention of torture. We should also convey to the Commission our insistence that all available means should be deployed. We should support and strengthen civil society organisations in Iran, notably via the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, and deploy all efforts for renewed engagement with Iranian civil society in such uncontroversial areas as the fight against narcotraffic, refugee issues, academic exchanges, and visits to Europe by journalists, to name but a few. They could help to further people-to-people contacts and lead to improved freedom of expression in the country. Pressure on human rights, yes, but no isolation! Dialogue, even if a very difficult dialogue. We are going through a very difficult and tense period with Iran. The crucial nuclear question is on hold, and we ask the question: what is the way forward? Well, sanctions are one possible measure being explored. We really believe the Union must find a way to re-engage in dialogue with Iran on all these issues. The need to find ways of building fresh trust and to create a strong diplomatic process has never been greater than now. We should offer our full support to the Council and the Commission in their efforts. In turn, we, the European Parliament, must continue with our efforts to strengthen the parliamentary diplomacy aspect of our relations with Iran through our strengthened links with the Majlis.
| null |
Richard Howitt
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, whatever people feel about the outcome of the Iranian elections, there is no doubt that tens – hundreds – of people have been injured, tens of people have been killed in the protests that have taken place since the elections in that country, and thousands of people appear to have been detained as political prisoners. This entire Chamber should therefore have no hesitation in condemning those abuses of human rights, as it should condemn the obstructions to free journalism that have taken place since the elections. We should also, as Mr Saryusz-Wolski mentioned concerning the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs last week, recognise that one of the best ways of determining a free and fair election is to invite election monitors to observe the process, and this European Union has got a fine record of doing that. We should note in this Chamber today that the Commission on our behalf did not have the confidence that they could do an independent, fair and objective job and therefore we have proper reason to say that we have no confidence in the election results. Our hearts go out to the Iranians who have been injured, detained or had their human rights abused. Our thoughts are foremost with them, but I also ask this Chamber not to forget the Iranian who was an employee of the British Embassy. He has been detained and is charged in a completely unjustified way with fomenting the protests. Our hearts go out too to the French student who was detained by the Iranian authorities. We should praise our colleagues in the Swedish Presidency who have stood by those countries and who have ensured concerted action by the European Union in response and ask them to continue it. Finally, I am ashamed that in this debate the British National Party will speak for the first time, with an MEP who last Friday described Islam as ‘a cancer that should be removed from Europe by chemotherapy’. That does not represent British people’s views; that is not Europe’s attitude towards Islam. We should stand up against that as we stand up against unfairness internationally.
| null |
Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Iran is a large country with a large and predominantly young population, a long and eventful history and an impressive culture. What is more, Iran is located in one of the most sensitive areas on the planet. For all these reasons, but also out of compassion for our fellow human beings, let us not be indifferent to the goings-on in Iran. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is not in favour of regime change by force. We do believe, however, that all the peoples of the world, including the Iranian people, must be entitled to choose their own leaders and to replace them when they cease to make the grade. Elections under Iran’s current regime do not meet international standards for free and fair elections, a situation that was no different in the most recent presidential elections. Yet even within the tight restrictions in place in Iran, large swathes of the population refused to accept the official results and took to the streets in protest. The Iranian people were not convinced by the extremely limited review of the results and the protests therefore continued. The protests were put down in a particularly violent way and the prosecutions are still going on. We firmly denounce these prosecutions and we call on the Iranian authorities to bring them to an immediate end and to release all those taken into custody. An immediate end must also be brought to the prosecutions of foreign journalists, NGO workers and the Iranian staff of foreign embassies in Tehran. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commission, a regime that turns on its own people and its own youth in this way loses all legitimacy, not just at home, but internationally as well. It is therefore particularly tragic that these dramatic developments should take place at a time when the president of the United States has expressed his willingness to enter into dialogue with Iran. Iran is on the verge of missing a historic opportunity to take the place on the world stage that its history and culture deserve.
| null |
Daniel Cohn-Bendit
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, when a people wants to free itself, it inspires our admiration and our solidarity. Such is the case for the Iranian people. It is true that those elections effectively ended before they began, but, even in those elections, we saw that the people of Iran were able to find the Achilles heel so as to express their desire for freedom and democracy. It is true that it is in our interest for the dialogue to be maintained with the Iranian – terrorist – power; no one disputes that. At the same time, however, we cannot simply move on to the business of the day. What took place in Tehran is absolutely horrible. Torture is a daily occurrence in Iranian prisons, but not only for UK nationals. Iranian men and women are tortured daily in these prisons, too. Therefore, Europe must raise its voice. I know that it is difficult to strike a balance between the interests and the protection of the Iranian people and our own interests, which are not always identical. However, even if it is complicated, it is important to stress that we show solidarity towards the Iranian people every day. I call on the Commission and the Council to analyse the part played by Nokia and Siemens and the responsibility of European weapons in the repression of the Iranian people. It is, after all, unthinkable that it should be large European companies that have enabled the Iranian Government to suppress the freedom and the desire for freedom of the Iranian people. (Applause)
| null |
Struan Stevenson
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, while we sit here debating the recent uprising in Iran, do we realise that over 50 of the student leaders, the protestors who were arrested, have been taken out and hanged by the Iranian authorities, that over 200 people were killed on the streets, including Neda, who has become an international and very potent symbol of the brutality of that fascist regime against the people of Iran? And, while we continue to enjoy our place as the biggest trading partner with the Iranian Government, do we seriously think that money is more important than lives? Why are we not prepared to put tougher sanctions in place? Why do we not, as a Parliament, scrap our Delegation for relations with Iran, which in any case in the last five years became nothing more than a compliant mouthpiece of the Iranian Embassy in Brussels and brought shame on the EU institutions? Scrap it and let us start talking tough with the Iranian authorities. It is the only language they understand.
| null |
Helmut Scholz
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the United European Left/Nordic Green Left is deeply concerned about the ongoing violence in Iran. We, too, condemn in the strongest possible terms the brutal mistreatment of demonstrators. We are extremely concerned about the fate of numerous people who were detained and call for their immediate release and we also believe that the European Parliament as a whole should do this. We are also critical of comments in media and governmental circles in other states which exploit the legitimate protests of the Iranian citizens. Not even the most recent developments in Iran justify plans for military action against Iranian nuclear installations. My group rejects such strategies. We therefore welcome the clear statement by President Obama, who has refused to give Israel the green light for an attack on Iran. The US President also believes in diplomacy. Iran is a sovereign state. Its people alone have the right to decide on changes to its society. The government of a sovereign state must openly accept the desire for change and drive through a political solution.
| null |
Fiorello Provera
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
it
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, congratulations on your election. The repression of citizens who contest the election results, the censorship of the media and the persecution of the opposition confirm the absence of democracy in Iran. We find similar situations in other countries too, such as China, but there is further cause for concern in Iran’s case. Firstly, because of its hegemonic ambitions, which manifest themselves in its interference in neighbouring countries, such as in the Basra region of Iraq, and in its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Secondly, because of the strong influence that religious extremism exerts on the political power of the Islamic Republic. A few hours ago a singer – an Iranian singer – was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for defamation of religion, and 12 Sunnis were sentenced to death. President Ahmadinejad has declared on many occasions that the destruction of the State of Israel is his main policy objective. Moreover, Iran’s desire to develop a nuclear programme outside international controls is alarming. In view of the fact that Iran is one of the largest producers of gas and oil, its real objective appears to be to develop nuclear weapons for the obvious purpose of being able to blackmail countries in the region and the entire international community. An intense effort is therefore required from the entire European political community to strike the right balance between opposing the Ayatollahs’ regime and supporting the moderate and reformist Iranian element that exists and is active. In this regard the financial resources from the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights could be used to support all of the victims of the current oppression. No political intervention can be effective, however, without all of the countries of Europe uniting and acting as one.
| null |
Krisztina Morvai
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, as a human rights lawyer with 20 years’ experience internationally, let me ask this Parliament, in order to have legitimacy and credibility, to scrutinise the human rights situation in the Third World and other non-EU countries, but also, please, to take a much closer look at the situation of democracy, the rule of law and human rights within the EU, in particular in my own country, Hungary. Let me share with you a couple of facts. On 23 October 2006, there was a major demonstration with about 100 000 people in commemoration of the 1956 revolution. This was organised by the largest opposition party, Fidesz, which is well represented here in the EPP, and basically they won the elections this year in Hungary. It was a middle-class crowd of families, elderly people, children, and the brutal Hungarian police brutally attacked this crowd with tear gas, with rubber bullets, with policemen on horseback, causing severe injuries to several hundred people. On the same occasion several hundred people were illegally detained and tortured in prison. Ever since that date, throughout the last three years right up to the most recent days, when 216 peaceful demonstrators were illegally detained and brutalised by the police, on every single occasion when there was an anti-government protest, not in Iran, not in China, not in Honduras, but in an EU country, Hungary, the same things happened: mass police brutalities, illegal detentions. May I ask you to please join forces with me and, regardless of political affiliations, help to find out what happened, to find who was responsible, to try to do justice to the victims and please, as the European Union, to try to put an end to these mass violations of human rights within the EU, in order to have the credibility and legitimacy to scrutinise the human rights situation in Iran or whichever country outside the Union.
| null |
Francisco José Millán Mon
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
es
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I am here to talk about Iran, and I would first like to join in expressing my condolences for the victims of this morning’s plane crash. Ladies and gentlemen, I agree with many of the ideas that have already been expressed regarding the situation in Iran following the electoral process. This process was neither free nor fair, and has allowed President Ahmadinejad and the most radical sectors of the regime to remain in power, violently repressing demonstrators, preventing journalists from doing their job and seeking to hold a supposed external conspiracy responsible for internal disorder, while using misinformation to conceal the truth. What is certain is that the Iranian regime has been seriously damaged, both internally and in terms of its external image. Moreover, the oligarchy that has enjoyed power in recent decades is now divided, which will affect the stability of the regime. At the same time, discontent among the people will continue to grow, especially if oil prices do not rise again and consequently the economic situation does not improve. The European Union needs to maintain a united front and continue to condemn the abuses committed in Iran. It should demand greater respect for human rights, and we also need to look at how we can help civil society, in particular those sectors that want democratic pluralism and respect for human rights for their country. We should not disappoint those sectors that are looking to the West, including the European Union. However, with regard to Iran we must also not forget the threat that its nuclear programme represents, as it is having a destabilising effect on the region and on non-proliferation in general. It is essential that the European Union and the United States continue to cooperate on this matter, and I am sure that this will be a priority for the Swedish Presidency. We need to fully involve Russia and China, which are permanent members of the Security Council. Their support is essential in order for a negotiated solution to be found to this grave threat, which requires unity and firmness from the international community. I therefore welcome the resolution adopted in this respect last week at the G8. Ladies and gentlemen, the events of the last few weeks have openly demonstrated the extremism and radical nature of the current Iranian leaders; it is clear that the international community cannot afford for them to obtain nuclear weapons.
| null |
María Paloma Muñiz de Urquiza
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
es
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, I was going to start my first speech to this plenary by welcoming the fact that the debate on the situation in Iran was not brought on by Iran’s prominence in the media, which has been superseded in turn by China, Honduras, the G20, etc. Unfortunately, the recent executions of Sunni militants in Iran have brought the country and its human rights violations back to the front page of the newspapers. However, I do not think that it should be what is in the news that inspires what is on Parliament’s agenda in terms of external policy, but rather Parliament’s own sense of responsibility and its considered and coherent response, in line with its growing role in the European Union’s external policy, especially in the field of human rights. This role, Mr President, involves monitoring the consistent use of all the instruments that the European Union has in this field and, in the case of Iran, we should not keep the dialogue on nuclear weapons entirely separate from the complete absence of political dialogue on human rights. Structured dialogue on human rights has been suspended since 2004. We do not have a cooperation and trade agreement on which to hang a democratic clause, we have not managed to send an electoral observation mission, and the funds of the Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights are minute. In Parliament and in the whole of the European Union we need to be more effective in using the instruments that we have available to us and that we have equipped ourselves with. Some in this very House and in the Iranian opposition have called for relations with the Iranian regime to be completely broken off and for the new government not to be recognised. We strongly condemn the political repression and the stifling of freedom of expression in Iran, but we do not think that we should relinquish being a force in the defence and protection of human rights, democracy and the fight against poverty in the world. In order to do this, Mr President, we need dialogue, negotiation and diplomacy, and we need to seek out common interests and build an alliance of civilisations. I call on the Presidency of the Council to do this.
| null |
Anna Rosbach
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
da
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament has discussed the violations of human rights by Iran on many occasions and we are, in fact, doing so again today. We will not change the appalling behaviour of the dictators by words alone. It is time for tangible action. The brutal slaughter of a people who hunger after freedom and who have courageously taken to the streets must cause us to take on some of the responsibility for bringing down this criminal regime. This regime has no place in the 21st century. European governments must report the Iranian regime to the UN Security Council and demand that the perpetrators, primarily Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, be brought before an international court. The Iranian people want freedom and we must support the call for free elections under UN supervision. Parliament cannot maintain its delegation with Iran, which, at its last meeting, was turned into a tool by the dictatorial regime to influence our parliament. We must demonstrate that we do not cooperate with dictatorships.
| null |
Nick Griffin
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, last year I served as a monitor at commemorations for the 1956 revolution in Budapest. I can confirm that Dr Morvai is right to criticise those who fret about Iran while ignoring human rights abuses here in Europe. I trust that no ECR Group members here will be hypocritical enough to condemn Iran for the use of violence in elections when David Cameron is among the sponsors of Unite Against Fascism, an organisation of far-left criminals which routinely deploys intimidation and violence against nationalist dissidents in Britain. The same is true of five current Labour, Lib Dem and Tory MEPs, marked with the shame of supporting the use of British taxpayers’ money to support their own militia, which breaks up opposition meetings and attacks their opponents with bricks, darts and claw hammers. But my main point is this: however well meaning, and even justified, criticisms of Iran made here may be, they will be exploited as war propaganda by the powerful vested interests that stand to gain from a military attack on that country. Neocons, oil companies, construction corporations and the Wahabi mullahs of Saudi Arabia all want to see the sovereign state of Iran destroyed by an aggressive war. Not even European liberals are naive enough to fall for lies about weapons of mass destruction again, so human rights are being drafted in as a new casus belli. Do not add the voice of this place to the warmongers’ chorus for a third illegal and counterproductive attack by the West on the Muslim world. Or, if you must, do not leave the war – which hypocritical rhetoric will help to justify and unleash – to the usual brave British cannon fodder: 18-year-old boys from the Mersey and the Thames and the Tyne. Instead, send your own sons to come home in boxes or without their legs, their arms and their sanity – or mind your own business.
| null |
Filip Kaczmarek
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the death of innocent people is always a tragedy. If, however, they die in defence of values such as freedom or truth, we can say that their suffering is not in vain – as is the case with the recent victims in Iran. Things have become very bad, when a regime shoots at demonstrators, puts opponents in prison, and tortures and kills them. The only source of hope and optimism is that these events may make politicians and public opinion across the world aware of the true nature of the Iranian regime, which is capable of actions which are very far removed from the minimum standards of the modern world. This regime has blood on its hands. We should remember this, and we should work towards changing a state of affairs which we cannot accept. In situations like this the same question always comes up: what can we do? Well, we can support the demands and proposals which have already been expressed. Firstly, the Iranian authorities must stop using violence towards those who have a different opinion than the regime. In the case of countries like Iran the observance of basic human rights should be monitored and guaranteed by the international community. Secondly, a free and fair election should be held in Iran, in which all candidates should be allowed to stand, and not just those who have obtained permission to stand. Incidentally, those who are making these decisions about the right to stand in elections do not themselves have a democratic mandate. The fairness of the election should be verified by independent external observers – otherwise the election will be pointless. Thirdly, we should do everything to ensure that the solutions for Iran are peaceful and political, and that means that we should support those Iranians who want fundamental changes in their country, changes which will mean that Iran will be governed by those who win fair elections, and Iran itself will cease to be a threat to world security. The leader of the Iranian opposition in exile, Mrs Rajavi, has said that what has happened in Iran is the beginning of the end of the regime. I sincerely hope that Mrs Rajavi is right.
| null |
Mario Mauro
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to the Swedish Presidency for its observations before our debate, which I feel were balanced and also able to make us understand the responsibility that we are being asked to fulfil. I should like, in this sense, to make an observation that stems from my having seen, as so many others have, on television screens everywhere, the crowds that in some way stirred up the protest of the last few days. However, while it is true that Iran is a theocracy in which fundamentalism has shaped its plan to wield power by pretending that it is in the name of God, in recent days we have also seen people take to the streets and actually cry out ‘God is great’. What a difference! This difference in looks, in the will that these people have expressed, and in the determination not to be violent, makes us realise that, in Iran, the love of freedom and of truth, the love for one’s own people, and the love and regard for everyone is not dead. Thirty years of theocracy, thirty years of systematic human destruction have not been enough to wipe out this memory that is in the hearts of each of us. It is to this that we owe loyalty. It is to this fact, to this love of truth and to this love of freedom that we owe our unconditional devotion, and it is this that should heighten the responsibility of everyone, because asking the European institutions to be strong, to be determined and to make their voices heard is, first and foremost, not a demand by Parliament for geopolitical prominence, it is pointing out that, insofar as it represents this political project that we call united Europe, the love of freedom and of truth that exists in all of those who demonstrated in recent days must not be forsaken by Europe’s institutions.
| null |
Tunne Kelam
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, a crucial change has taken place in Iran. Our first conclusions, therefore, should be that Iran is not and will not be the same again. It is because millions of Iranians have refused to be hostages of their clerical rulers. They have demonstrated an amazing courage in challenging the dictatorship. The issue, therefore, is not about rigging so-called elections more than usual. This time, blatantly rigged votes provided an outlet for a popular protest the experts outside Iran could not or were not willing to expect. This reminds me of the situation 20 years ago in Eastern Europe: while the Western governments were prepared for a long-term accommodation and pragmatic coexistence with the Soviet totalitarian system, suddenly millions of hostages of the Communist regime became active: they challenged the system, which was brought to a sudden end. Therefore, it is important to realise that the European approach to Iran cannot remain the same – just turning a blind eye to routinely rigged elections and systematic repression. It is estimated that during 30 years of dictatorship more than five million people have been imprisoned, more than 200 000 tortured to death and recently more than 200 killed. The EU governments have been too hesitant in condemning these atrocious crimes and to make the regime bear responsibility for its behaviour. If we are serious about protecting the rights of Iranian citizens, we need to be prepared to cause the dictators real pain. What does this mean? We should, for example, ban any of the leaders of the regime from travelling to the EU; we should recall our ambassadors from Iran as a gesture of our indignation; and free elections can take place in Iran only under UN supervision.
| null |
Lena Barbara Kolarska-Bobinska
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, as the situation in Iran escalates and the violation of democracy also presents a danger to the stability of the whole region, we have to express our concern and condemnation – but declarations must not only be symbolic and empty. Some European leaders are talking about new sanctions to be imposed on Iran, but a discussion is needed right now on the promotion of democracy at grass-root level in this country. I am Polish, and we in Eastern Europe know how important these types of actions are for the establishment of democracy. A promotion should be adapted to the political and economic situation in a given country, but previous EU experience in the promotion of democracy in North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe has to be reviewed and evaluated in order to see what should be done in Iran, what can be done in Iran and what is effective under given circumstances in this country. I also want to remind you that, if the EU wants to be credible, it also has to undertake some measures in Moldova. Soon we will face a new test – on 29 July – with the elections in Moldova. The EU has to do everything it can to ensure free and fair democratic elections in this country. It is not enough to talk about support for democracy: we in the European Parliament and European institutions have to be more active in that respect.
| null |
Bogusław Sonik
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it certainly is necessary to monitor the progress of the electoral process in Iran, although the beginning of a solution to the conflict should be a declaration by the authorities in Iran that they will stop using force, and that they will free the imprisoned opposition activists, defenders of human rights, journalists, demonstrators and citizens of other countries who are currently being blamed for the situation which exists in Iran. We should, of course, uphold absolute respect for the sovereignty of Iran, but we should also remind Tehran that it is obliged to observe the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I would also like to express concern at Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran is entitled to a nuclear programme used for peaceful purposes, but it is also obliged to restore the confidence of the international community that Iranian nuclear activity is exclusively peaceful in nature.
| null |
Maria Eleni Koppa
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
el
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I should like to express my deep regret about the tragic aircraft accident which occurred today in the province of Qazvin in Iran. The debate here today is a necessity following the events which ensued after the elections on 12 June. However, I think that we must hold it within the right framework. We must not send out the wrong message. Any direct or indirect link between these events and the question of the nuclear programme is misleading. We must be clear that our subject today is the situation of democracy and human rights in Iran. Talk about new sanctions will not under any circumstances help to resolve the serious problems of the Iranian people. Democracy cannot be imposed by such means. In the European Union we need to step up efforts for democratisation and respect for fundamental freedoms, but by setting this issue within the framework of a substantial political dialogue and by strengthening our contacts with civil society. We also need to call for further investigation into complaints of fraud in the election process and to emphasise once again that the right of peaceful protest is an inalienable right of the people of every country. We must therefore roundly condemn the violence from this tribune here today and call for respect for freedom of speech and expression to be applied in practice in Iran, as in every other country in the world.
| null |
Michael Gahler
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I think it is good that we are having this debate in the first week of the new Parliament. Unfortunately, our group chairmen have rejected a motion for a resolution. I ask myself who we are actually paying attention to here. A resolution would have been helpful to the dissidents in Iran if we had confirmed to them in a tangible statement that what was officially described as a presidential election did not in any way meet international standards of democracy because most of the candidates were rejected by the Guardian Council and because even those who were permitted to stand cannot be considered to have been given equal conditions. From a political perspective we can therefore conclude without reservation that the results of the election as announced did not represent the will of the Iranian people. Let us, as the EU, actively use our instruments for democracy and human rights, support the living civil society or even lawyers like Shirin Ebadi, for example, who is standing up for the Bahai detainees there. I believe this is the policy that can be successful at the moment, even in the short term. (Applause)
| null |
Ulrike Lunacek
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, last week – to my great pleasure as a new Member – in a meeting of the Foreign Policy Committee we heard a talk by Mr Makhmalbaf, an Iranian film director, who told us very plainly that before this election Iran had 20% democracy, but after the election, which in his opinion was a sham, there was absolutely no democracy left. I also agree with this description – it most certainly was a sham election, which, with large-scale electoral fraud, robbed the majority of Iranian people, who had called for change, of this right. President-in-Office of the Council there is one thing in particular that interests me: in the middle of August the inauguration of the ‘re-elected’ Mr Ahmadinejad will take place. What is currently being discussed in the Council and also in the Member States? Will the European Union and the Member States be officially represented at this inauguration? I certainly hope not, as I do not think that there should be any official representation of the European Union or the Member States after this election sham, and as much as I would advocate further dialogue, no one should officially represent the European Union at this inauguration. What is your position on this? How is it currently being dealt with?
| null |
Pier Antonio Panzeri
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
it
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when debating foreign policy issues, such as today’s issue involving Iran, there is always the risk, as we know, of lagging slightly behind the events taking place. However, there is no doubt that the European Parliament, if it wants to, can play an important role in urging Europe and the international community to take the current events seriously and to implement all of the initiatives needed to ensure that the process of introducing a democratic system in Iran can actually take place. Following the close attention paid by the international public to the post-election period in Iran and the street demonstrations that the Iranian regime sought to repress with the use of violence, it is important to ensure that silence does not descend on the situation in the country. Being realistic about things does not mean taking the Iran issue off the agenda. It is also up to us to keep this level of attention high, and it is also up to the Swedish Presidency – which I thank for the points it has made today – to promote a strong initiative, together with the United States, Russia and other countries, in order to change the way in which issues in Iran, from democratic rights to the nuclear issue itself, develop.
| null |
Alejo Vidal-Quadras
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
es
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, in the last few weeks we have been moved by the repeated demonstrations of heroism and the bravery of the people of Iran, who have confronted the machine guns and truncheons of their tyrants with their bare hands. The large numbers of women leading the demonstrations is an unmistakeable expression of the Iranians’ determination to live in a true democracy. President-in-Office of the Council, the European Union’s response has been too weak and too fainthearted. We need to send out a very strong political signal to express our absolute rejection of this intolerable theocratic dictatorship. The solution has been voiced very well by the leader of the resistance in exile, Massoud Rajavi: the Supreme Leader needs to be deposed, and a temporary assembly of experts needs to call free elections under international supervision. Anything else will be a waste of time and will prolong this disgrace.
| null |
Ria Oomen-Ruijten
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
May I start by warmly welcoming the new President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Bildt. I am aware, of course, that he is about to face a number of very busy months, as the problems of the world are going to be resting, more than anywhere, on his big, broad shoulders. Mr President, when it comes to Iran I have the following points to make. First of all, the Iranian regime is unpredictable. Secondly, I note that there are, in fact, hairline cracks beginning to appear in the regime, specifically in religious circles. Thirdly, it is my observation that the regime supports everything that is bad or involves corruption in this world – be it in the Middle East or in Pakistan. Fourthly, I would point out that dialogue really does not provide any help and, finally, I note the citizens rightly want more freedom and that they must have our – Europeans’ – support in this regard. I would then like to ask you, Mr Bildt, why has the Council been unable to produce a tougher statement and why have we only listened to a couple of countries that always want to act in defiance of the human rights situation?
| null |
Enrique Guerrero Salom
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
es
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I would of course like to start by condemning the events in Iran and the repression by the Iranian Government, but I want to join with those who have advocated that we should combine pressure from the European institutions with maintaining dialogue and the negotiation process. History and experience have shown us that breaking off all relations with authoritarian regimes does nothing to improve living conditions for the people who are suffering under such regimes and, at the same time, it weakens the position of those of us who are defending respect for democracy and human rights in such countries. I therefore think that we should use all the tools that the European Union has to put pressure on the Iranian regime, starting with this Parliament, but at the same time that we should also maintain negotiations and dialogue – dialogue that puts pressure on the regime – especially through the High Representative, Mr Solana.
| null |
Magdi Cristiano Allam
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Iran today represents the principal threat to international security and stability: on the one hand, by violating the United Nations resolutions it is pursuing its objective of equipping itself with atomic weapons and, on the other, it is repeating its desire to physically destroy the State of Israel. I hope that Europe, with the Swedish Presidency, can send out a clear message to Iran in general, indicating that the non-negotiable values of the right to life, human dignity and the freedom of choice cannot be separated from the development of bilateral relations and that, in particular, it can make it clear that the State of Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable and that Europe, which has lived through the Holocaust on its own territory, will not allow a second holocaust of the State and the people of Israel.
| null |
Philippe Juvin
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I wish to take the floor to call on our Parliament to declare itself clearly in favour of financial and technical sanctions against Iran. Of course, there are a great many arguments against sanctions, since they will have consequences for the lives of Iranian citizens. However, the worst thing for Iranian citizens, Mr President, would not be the shortages caused by these sanctions; the worst thing would be our silence, our failure to act. Sanctions, Mr President, would show that we are not indifferent, and I believe that that is crucial. That is why, Mr President, our Parliament must demand financial sanctions against Iran.
| null |
Charles Tannock
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the appalling Iranian theocratic dictatorship is already guilty of many crimes against its own people: from hanging Baha’is to hanging homosexuals and now apparently hanging 50 innocent protestors. So we should hardly be surprised by the mere stealing of an election through wholesale electoral fraud. I believe this crack in the regime and the courage of its protesting youth – whom I salute – will eventually bring the whole rotten government down. Mr Howitt recently, in another meeting, suggested that we should have sent EU electoral observers from this House to confirm whether fraud had actually taken place. No, we must never legitimise any sham election which restricts candidates on the basis of their religious purity and conducts its count behind closed doors.
| null |
Carl Bildt
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I have listened very attentively to the different assessments and views expressed. This is, as has been pointed out, a most important debate on a most important subject. I think it can fairly be said that we stand united in our assessment of what has been happening, what we have seen on the television screens and, more importantly, what we have heard from the people who know even more than what can be seen on the television screens. I would like to take issue with someone who said we have not been clear enough. If you make a comparison with what the European Union has said, and what every other significant world body of actors has said, there is no question that we are the ones that have been the most clear, the most consistent, the strongest in the words that we have used. We would have wished those words to have more of an effect than they already have, but that is often the case. But, while words are, nevertheless, important – no question about that – we are discussing primarily what has been happening in Iran since the election on 12 June. I think it is important also to focus on what we saw on the television screens before 12 June, because that was suddenly a somewhat different Iran from the one we were used to. There was an element within the boundaries of the regime, certainly, of vitality, an element of plurality, an obvious desire for change, for openness, for reform. Whether that represented the majority of Iranians or not is very difficult to judge from the outside, but that it was significant is testified not least by the force of the crackdown that we saw after 12 June. So in condemning what we have seen after, we should not forget what we saw before and the long-term significance of that. I think we are united in what we say and what we think. Mr Saryusz-Wolski, Mr Cohn-Bendit and Mr Mauro: virtually the same, if we look at what we are assessing. But the most difficult thing is not what we say; the most difficult thing is what we do faced with this situation. I think we must then operate along two lines. The first one is fairly obvious. The European Union must be the clear voice for human rights and democracy wherever and under whatever circumstances. There might be other factors coming into consideration of policy as well, but it should not dilute in any way from the consistency of our defence for human rights. So we must condemn the killings, the use of the death sentence. We must call for the release of those detained. We must be clear in our call for full respect for the freedom and the rights that are there for every human being in our world. Secondly – and I think here there might be some dissent – we must also be prepared to engage. I say that, recognising that that is a far more difficult policy than just to stand back, do nothing or try to isolate: that is easy; to engage is difficult. Mr Kelam alluded to some of the historical experience we have, with the balancing act that that entails. But the fact that we have a certain amount of historical experience in Europe – reflected not the least here – perhaps makes it possible for us to venture along that particular road. We should never believe that just a diplomatic dialogue can sort out every issue that has been addressed here: it cannot. Other factors will come in to that particular equation. But neither should we forget that there are some issues that we have a duty to seek to resolve through diplomatic dialogue. I am thinking of the individuals employed at the British Embassy, or the French student and others, that we must deal with now in a dialogue. I come from a country where 1% of our citizens have a background in Iran. They move back and forth. We have consular issues that are of a multitude that is difficult to fathom. We need to be prepared to engage, to help individuals in different cases, without believing that that is going to sort out everything at once. We have the nuclear dossier that has been alluded to. There might be others who believe there are far more simple solutions to that. I do not think there is any solution if we do not engage in a true diplomatic dialogue on that. Those are other issues that we need to engage on. This is obviously going to be more demanding and more difficult in the circumstances that we now have, there is no question about that, and I think the discussion in the Committee on Foreign Affairs last week highlighted some of the difficult choices and some of the difficult judgements that we have to make in not only the coming weeks, but months – but not very much longer than that. Here we must engage – you, us in the Council and us as Europeans – with other significant international actors, not only with Americans with a new and good approach by the Obama Administration, but also engage with others – the UN Security Council, Russia, China, and with the wider world community. It is only then that we can hope to be able to start resolving not only the immediate issues, but also the other issues that need to be addressed. I am grateful for this debate. I think it has highlighted the clear unanimity that we have when it comes to defending our values, but it has also highlighted some of the difficult choices and balancing acts that we have to engage in in the months and years ahead. We know what we want to achieve; we must also seek to achieve it. But do not think it is going to be easy. I can assure you that the Council will continue to be very much engaged with all aspects of this particular dossier. (Applause)
| null |
Daniel Cohn-Bendit
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, please excuse me, but I have just been given a piece of information, and I should like to share it with the Council and with all my fellow Members. Natalia Estemirova, who was a candidate for the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize, was kidnapped this morning in Grozny and is being held by unknown kidnappers. I call on the Council, the Commission and the MEPs to protest so that Moscow is aware that we are thinking of Natalia Estemirova.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The debate is closed.
| null |
Richard Howitt
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, this is just to put the record straight, as my name was cited by my colleague, Mr Tannock. I did not call for EU observers last week and, indeed, earlier in the debate I was very clear in saying that, should the circumstances have justified it, the European Union would have been able to send an observer mission to the Iranian elections. However, it was precisely because the Commission did not have the confidence to do this that causes us proper, justified and objective concerns about the conduct of those elections. I am sorry that Mr Tannock was not in the Chamber to hear that earlier in the debate, and I hope that I have been able to put the record straight.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Iran (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The debate is closed.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Τhe next item is the Council and Commission statements on China.
| null |
Carl Bildt
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, another debate of, needless to say, some importance. And, although the subject is China, it of course takes place against the background of some significant developments in Xinjiang in the western part of China. I know that these events have been followed by many Members of this Parliament as well as our respective national parliaments throughout Europe. We have also, as a Council, expressed our concern over the reports on the unrest there and called for restraint on all sides and for the situation to be resolved peacefully. I think it is time for us to say that we attach great importance to human rights. We also profoundly regret not only the loss of life but the destruction of property and everything else that we have seen happening and we can only condemn those that are responsible for it, whoever they are. But let me also take this opportunity to take stock somewhat more widely of our relationship with China, a country with which we have an extraordinary range of complex relationships. In fact, when we decided in 2003 to set up those relationships within the framework of a comprehensive strategic partnership, we were committing ourselves to an extremely ambitious enterprise, and this is very much reflected in the broad and wide-ranging relationship which we have with China today. Complexity of course brings opportunities. It also brings challenges of different sorts. What we have tried to do with this relationship is to open it up to the point where we can discuss frankly and openly any concern that we might have on either side. The basis for such an open dialogue is the shared interest that we have in developing our relationship, our shared interest in global peace and stability. We pursue this through dialogue and through multilateralism. We have the annual summit meetings and we have fairly frequent meetings at the level of foreign ministers. We also have an intense biannual human rights dialogue and then of course sectoral dialogues on different issues, trade obviously being one of particular importance. We also have the annual high-level dialogue on trade and economic issues. As you are aware, in 2007 we also launched negotiations for a partnership and cooperation agreement. Negotiations are progressing but still there is a potential to increase efforts on both sides in these negotiations. We have a very clear interest in developing the relationship with China in all fields, and that entails, as I said, the possibility for an open and frank dialogue, also on issues where our values might be different, and we know that such issues exist, including human rights, including issues like the use of the death sentence; but also to pursue the common interest that, needless to say, we have these days: issues of global financial stability, issues of how to deal with the climate change challenge are important. Also important are foreign policy issues, be that the situation we face over the Korean peninsula with the provocation by the DPIK, or the situation in Burma, where we are concerned, obviously, at what we see happening, but our concern also stretches to the situation in Africa and the need to protect the vital sea routes around the Horn of Africa. I will not go further into this question now, but wish only to underline the concern that we have over developments, without being able to assess those in every single detail because they are exceedingly complex, our hope that they could be resolved peacefully and our readiness to engage with the Chinese authorities in a frank dialogue on these issues, as well as on the broad range of other interests that we share together and that we need to have a dialogue on.
| null |
Catherine Ashton
|
EU Commissioner
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it is a sign of the importance that this House attaches to our strategic relationship with China that this debate has been scheduled during your inaugural session. I yet again welcome the opportunity to contribute with a brief outline of the perspective of the Commission on behalf of my colleague Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who, I have indicated, is unfortunately travelling this week and cannot be here. I do not need to remind this House of the huge progress we have made in relations with China since our first summit, now 10 years ago. Economic and trade relations have been transformed, people-to-people contacts are multiplying and we are engaged in dialogue on an ever-increasing range of issues. Following the last EU-China Summit in May, negotiations on a new partnership and cooperation agreement are proceeding well and we are able to take advantage of a growing number of high-level contacts, including Prime Minister Wen’s highly successful visit to President Barroso earlier this year and the meeting of the high-level economic and trade dialogue which I co-chaired with Vice-Premier Wang Qishan. Today we are naturally focused on global challenges, including the economic and financial crisis and climate change, as well as regional issues. At the same time, we have strong interests in the situation inside China, where we witness many spectacular achievements but also developments that cause concern. China’s policy of opening up its economy has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and helped the world progress towards the important Millennium Development Goals. Yet China is a huge country with considerable internal challenges and differences between its regions. The strength of our strategic partnership also allows for constructive and open exchange of views on issues where Europe and China diverge. This can be on aspects of our trade relationship or human rights – for example over Tibet, which I know is of particular interest in this House. Recently we expressed strong concern over the unrest in Xinjiang, deplored the loss of life, and expressed our condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims. We have called on all parties to show restraint and bring an immediate end to all acts of violence. We hope the situation can be resolved peacefully through dialogue without further bloodshed. The EU has tried, over the years, to convey to the Chinese authorities its worries over the situation of ethnic minorities in China and to share its own experience, many times painful, on how to address the causes of marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination that those minorities often face. We all share the goal of a more open, transparent China adhering to international standards on human rights and working together to address global challenges. To achieve this, we must continue to integrate China deeper into the international community and work on the development of our strategic partnership in the spirit of constructive engagement.
| null |
Elmar Brok
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the basic substance of what was said by the previous speakers from the Council and Commission. I too am of the opinion that we should continue the One China policy to achieve the cohesion of China as a unified state, and that we do not want to jeopardise any of this. Of course, we do not permit violence – be it violence by demonstrators under particular circumstances or violence by the state against demonstrators, as was actually the case. I wanted to mention this first. However, we also need to understand that, in China, the violence of the central government which, in this multi-ethnic state with many cultural differences, does not show a sufficient degree of understanding, will always be a recurring problem. This is why greater cultural autonomy, greater opportunities for mobility and opportunities relating to the preservation of identity and language are all prerequisites for all the citizens of a multi-ethnic state to be able to live together under one roof. China’s history has consisted of a series of break-aways and reunifications with massive campaigns of violence. This can be seen again and again throughout China’s history. China needs to realise that this cannot go on and that it needs to introduce this autonomy. The Uighurs are a moderate Sunni minority. They pose no direct terrorist threat. There is therefore the same danger as we see in Tibet and that is that if China does not enter into agreements with the moderates, there are always young radicals who cannot and do not want to wait any longer. Therefore, delaying a solution with regard to identity delays a solution in the long term. The Chinese Government is extremely ill advised to talk only of terrorists, to claim that these people want to destroy the unity of the state and to say that outside forces like Al-Qaeda and others are behind this. I do not believe that this is a solution for this country and therefore we should make it clear that we do not accept such a policy. All this should be understood under the premise that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.
| null |
Adrian Severin
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the Chinese people are completely right to ask us why the European Parliament has put the situation in China on the agenda of the first part-session of its new mandate. Our answer must be clear: this is because China is very important to us and not because we think that our role is to teach China or to impose our views on how sensitive internal problems of this country should be solved. It is precisely because China is so important to us that we should pay close attention to any event affecting its internal stability and any event that could become a threat to its security. This time the context was given by the multi-ethnic realities in the Xinjiang region and the aspirations of the Uighur predominant ethnic group to autonomy. Such contexts are always sensitive and, therefore, respect for human and minority rights leading towards the sense of dignity and security for both minority and majority is important. Minority rights, however, should not be an excuse for, and they could not excuse, the separatist policies, the extremist means to promote those policies and certainly not the killing of peaceful civilians belonging to a minority or to an ethnic community. While asking for full respect for human rights and minority rights, while expressing compassion for all victims of these rights, while asking for clarification concerning terrorist, religious, extremist and separatist dimensions of these events, the European Parliament should offer its assistance to the Chinese Government and society in order to cope with these difficult realities, which are also a problem in some of our countries. While asking the Chinese Government to refrain from the excessive use of power, we have also to ask everybody in the world to refrain from using minority rights as a means for promoting geopolitical goals.
| null |
Graham Watson
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, this House has long been critical of the People’s Republic of China for its treatment of ethnic minorities. The Uighurs of Xinjiang Province have suffered more than most, particularly since the occupation of East Turkestan by the People’s Republic of China in 1949. The People’s Republic claims that it does not seek territorial expansion. History shows that in East Turkestan, Tibet and Taiwan, under Communist rule it has sought to rule and to subjugate. That is the reason why the European Union must not lift the arms embargo on China. For a European Prime Minister to refer to the reaction to the latest unrest as ‘genocide’ is perhaps an exaggeration, but for the People’s Republic to complain of interference in internal affairs betrays a world view which is touchingly antiquated. If the contours of the world economy are drawn in the computer campuses of West Coast America, in the call centres of India, in the factories of China, if major decisions can be communicated from Beijing to Brussels in a nanosecond, we have become truly one global community, and there is no room in this community for repression or subjugation on the basis of race or religion or ethnicity; no room for Islamophobia or for anti-Semitism or any other kind of hatred. China’s problems stem in this instance from the greying of the middle kingdom. They need more young people to work elsewhere, similar to the problems we face here in the European Union. I saw this when I visited Urumqi four years ago. But the People’s Republic will find that it needs policies to protect economic migrants, policies to recognise the legitimate demands of ethnic minorities, just as we do. Here, Mr Bildt, is a role for the European Union. We know that as democracies mature, so they become more willing to allow people self-government and self-determination. Indeed, the biggest problems in Europe are found in the younger democracies, like Spain and Hungary. We need to help the Chinese people, who are quite capable of living in democracy – as Taiwan and Hong Kong show – to match their growing economic strength with a growing political maturity in developing democracy and help them develop the policies to match, policies like Erasmus Mundus, policies of which the Commissioner has spoken to increase people-to-people exchange. I am convinced that the European Union can play an important role in working with China to these ends.
| null |
Helga Trüpel
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I condemn the violence on both sides, both on the part of the Han Chinese and on the part of the Uighurs, and I mourn for all the innocent victims. However, this is not a conflict where the two sides are equal. The Uighurs are a suppressed people numbering only nine million. I believe that the minorities policy in the People’s Republic of China has failed. The society is also not harmonious as the Communist Party of China claims. In Xinjiang, the region of the Uighurs, there is just as little cultural autonomy as in Tibet. There is no real self-government, even if these regions are referred to as being autonomous and above all – and this is crucial for the younger generation in particular – the Uighurs do not have the same social and economic rights as the rest of the population. However, the Communist Party of China recognises only one charge, only one monotonously repeated charge, and that is of criminal separatism. Anyone who promotes human rights and democracy in China runs the risk of being declared a criminal and a separatist. However, the People’s Republic of China needs to understand that it is only with the guarantee of minority rights that there will be any real chance of internal peace. Only by granting equal rights will China have peaceful internal development and acceptance of this country. I have one last very important comment to make to the Swedish Presidency. Yes, it is true that we have an interest in a strategic partnership with China on account of climate policy and general foreign policy matters. However, we cannot sacrifice human rights and our criticism of the situation regarding human rights in China for the sake of a strategic interest. Our strategic policy with regard to China must instead include a clear statement regarding the minorities policy and the violation of human rights in China.
| null |
Charles Tannock
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, for centuries the Uighurs have eked out a perilous living in an inhospitable part of a vast country. Most of them are peaceful followers of Islam. However, sadly some of the local population in recent years have become increasingly radicalised by terrorists in league with Al-Qaida. China has never been tolerant of dissent or its own minorities, but I do share its concern about the threat of Uighur Islamist terrorism. I actually helped convince the Council to ban the Uighur East Turkestan Liberation Front three years ago. China’s authoritarianism and Han dominance must not be used as an excuse by Uighur terrorists, some of whom are found as far afield as Guantánamo Bay, to spread fear and violence, as most victims of the recent violence were in fact Han Chinese. Many of us are naturally concerned about human rights in China and I am also committed as a friend of Taiwan. However, the EU remains wedded to a one-China policy and, given that the EU officially considers Taiwan and Tibet part of the People’s Republic of China, we should certainly not support in any way the secession of Xinjiang province. One interesting aspect of this issue is whether this controversy will cause China’s Muslim partners in Africa like Sudan to reassess their links to the country. Finally, I note that Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan has labelled this violence as a genocide: a bit rich coming from him when his own country fails to recognise the Armenian genocide. His efforts to appeal to pan-Turkic nationalism are also hypocritical, given Turkey’s treatment of its own minorities and in particular the Kurds in eastern Turkey.
| null |
Bastiaan Belder
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The call to jihad has already gone out both inside and outside Xinjiang, and now the bloody clashes between Han Chinese and Uighurs on Chinese territory threaten to escalate dramatically, both in China and beyond. The local Christian community is straining absolutely every sinew against the dangerous religious dimension of the ethnic divisions in Xinjiang. The community prays specifically for peace, stability and justice for all the citizens of Xinjiang. Irrationally enough, the Chinese Government does not take hold of this helping hand, but strikes it down repressively. This can be seen from a blatant campaign by government agencies against peaceful protestant house churches of late. Thus, on 3 July, eight Christians were arrested in Xinjiang during a service. Four of them are still being held in a secret location, while two Chinese-American missionaries have simply gone missing. I ask the Council and the Commission to intervene with the Chinese authorities as a matter of urgency in order to ensure freedom of religious practice for all in this critical situation in Xinjiang. This would be the only effective antidote to the call to jihad and would also provide proof to Chinese house churches that they are part of Beijing’s plans to create a harmonious society.
| null |
Laima Liucija Andrikienė
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ‘violence’, ‘a high number of casualties’, ‘hundreds dead and wounded in China in the uprising in Xinjiang province’: those were the alarming reports we received 10 days ago. In Xinjiang, the internet was blocked completely, limiting communications into and out of the desert region. Taking into account what happened in Tibet last year, recent developments in Eastern Turkestan, also known as Xinjiang, should be a wake-up call to the Chinese Government on its overall policies towards ethnic minorities in China. The message sent by the Uighur people is that those policies have failed and that the Chinese Government has to understand this and look for the solution. The eight-million-strong Uighur population in the region has long complained about the treatment they receive from the Chinese Central Government and recently during the racist mob attacks the Chinese Government failed to protect the Uighurs from perpetrators of violence. It has nothing to do with the war on terror, the controversial concept used by the Chinese Government as a justification for their repressive treatment of the Uighurs in East Turkestan. The fact that President Hu Jintao had to shorten his participation in the G8 Summit in Italy to return to China indicates that the Chinese Government realises that events in the province are not just an isolated incident. Rather than seeking solutions through repression and crackdown, the Chinese leadership needs positive action addressing the basic grievances of the Uighur people, especially if China wants to show maturity and create a sincerely harmonious society. I fully support the EU position expressed by the President-in-Office to urge restraint on all sides and call on the Government of China to respect freedom of speech and information, as well as the right to peaceful protest.
| null |
Véronique De Keyser
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the outbreak of violence in the autonomous region of Xinjiang is being severely repressed by the Chinese Government. The clashes between Uighurs and Hans have taken the official death toll to 186, but the bloodshed continues. This violence is being presented by China as a mere interethnic conflict between Hans and Uighurs, when it is in fact the almost inevitable result of its repressive policy in the Xinjiang region. The region is strategic but difficult to control. As a key transit route and with its wealth of natural resources – gold, oil and gas – it is crucial to the future of China’s energy supply. However, its population includes many non-Chinese ethnic groups, the largest of which is the Uighurs. The latter, which make up almost half of the population, are for the most part Sunni Muslims of Turkish-speaking origin. For a decade, they have been systematically discriminated against and threatened with assimilation and death, and their identity is in danger. In fact, China’s policy towards these ethnic minorities was liberal in the 1980s but it has gradually become tougher, and the Chinese authorities seized upon 11 September 2001 in order to publicise their fight against – and note how they are all merged – terrorism, separatism and religious extremism. In April 2009 Amnesty International issued a stark warning: after Tibet, there will be Xinjiang. The policy of non-violence having failed, the Uighur separatists would seek other ways of having their demands for recognition of their identity met, and this has indeed happened. However, China cannot continue to maintain its cohesion through repeated acts of bloodshed. As a signatory to international agreements, it is bound to protect its ethnic minorities. Moreover, its constitution, together with its 1984 law on regional autonomy, also oblige it to protect these minorities. Is Europe going to continue to shut its eyes and merely condemn the repression and unsuccessfully beg for the release of the political prisoners? No. Human rights in China are a political problem, and we must dare to remind that country of its commitments to its people and of the risk that it would run with regard to the international community should it fail to fulfil them. We shall expect strong action from the Swedish Presidency in this regard.
| null |
Tomasz Piotr Poręba
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the way in which protests have been dealt with in Xinjiang province has provided further confirmation of the authoritarian nature of the Communist authorities in Beijing. At least 180 people are now dead and 1600 injured as a result of the most significant ethnic conflict to take place in China in recent decades. The European Parliament is duty bound to condemn violence arising from discrimination on ethnic or religious grounds. Such should also be our response in this case, when the might of an authoritarian state has been unleashed against the Uighur minority. The latter is not the only victim of totalitarian governments, however. The citizens of a Europe based on Christian values have a special duty towards Christian minorities that are persecuted in other parts of the world. Unofficial sources indicate that where China is concerned, this minority consists of over 30 million people. This means that the representatives of a population the same size as that of a large European country are being harassed, persecuted, prevented from seeking employment, tortured and murdered by the Chinese Communist authorities. The Chinese regime is aware that a longing for freedom and the rule of law are concomitant with Christianity, and that is why it is trying to halt the spread of that religion. Its attempts to overcome the Church are proving unsuccessful, however, as the number of believers is steadily increasing year on year. The Chinese authorities have to understand that the so-called Central State cannot become a truly modern state unless and until it begins to respect the fundamental principles of democracy and freedom of religion.
| null |
Bernd Posselt
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, today’s debate proves once again that the Council is the weak point of the EU. This House has adopted a very clear position on human rights and Lady Ashton has given an impressively clear speech on behalf of the Commission. However, from the Council I have heard only that they condemn both sides for the violence. Of course violence by the Uighurs should be condemned too. But can we really compare it to what a communist dictatorship that has learnt nothing from the massacre in Tiananmen Square is doing in suppressing an entire people in a brutal and bloody fashion and threatening this people with ethnocide by means of a targeted settlement policy? Can we compare this to incidents which are quite simply an expression of Chinese propaganda and which are not being investigated by anyone at an international level? I do not think so. The Uighurs are currently being accused of separatism. However, is it separatism if a house is on fire and I try to escape from this house? Is it separatism if I am wrongfully imprisoned and I try to escape? That is not separatism, that is an expression of the will to live. If the Uighurs in China were given space to live in their homeland in freedom and with dignity and independence there would be no more separatism. That is the only way to prevent separatism. The Uighurs are not a minority, they are a people just like the Swedes, who happen to be smaller in number than the Han Chinese. However, is a people in the wrong simply because it is smaller in number? Do we have to bow to a power simply because it is larger? I do not think so. We, as the European Union, therefore have an important obligation. I represent Munich, and the headquarters of the World Uighur Congress is in Munich. Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe were also previously based in Munich. We are still proud to have been the voice of freedom at that time. I am sure that one day we will be just as proud to have been the centre for the free Uighurs and I hope that one day all Uighurs will enjoy this freedom.
| null |
Evelyne Gebhardt
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one thing needs to be stated very clearly: there is a unified system in China and we do not want to allow this system to break up. We respect the Chinese system. However, that does not mean ... (Interruption by Mr Posselt) We respect China’s unified system. However, that does not mean that the diversity of peoples in China must not also be respected. That is what we Social Democrats are calling for. We want citizens’ rights, human rights and people’s freedom to be respected in China. We want freedom of expression to be respected. We want journalists to be able to move around freely so that the situation as it really is can indeed be reported. That is what we want and there is one thing that we would say very clearly to our colleagues in China: what for us is a basic principle we would also expect to be a basic principle for you in China, namely that human rights are universal. What the politicians always say to us – let us first solve the social problems and then we can talk about human rights – is the wrong way to go about things. It must be the other way round. Human rights come first and then social rights, which are quite simply part and parcel of human rights and cannot be separated from them. I was therefore very disappointed by what you said, Mr Bildt. You seemed to be saying: let us work together on an economic level, that is our main concern and all of the other things are of no particular interest to us. That is not the approach that we need. We need to take the approach presented to us by the European Commission, namely to say that we first want a common basis for our work on which we can then build our cooperation, because we do want cooperation, that much is clear, but not on any basis, only on a correct basis that respects human dignity.
| null |
Nirj Deva
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, may I congratulate Mr Bildt on a very balanced speech just now. I believe in the borders of the nation state as recognised by the United Nations and so oppose separatist-related violence everywhere in the world, be it in Kashmir, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, where I was born, Northern Ireland, where I got bombed, Spain or even in China. I regret that in China, a country very important for the EU, some 1 680 people have been injured and 184 killed. The problem started in a toy factory in Guangdong and spread. Among those killed in the riots in Urumqi were 137 Han Chinese and 46 Uighur Chinese. This is deplorable. We must condemn it. If these acts were encouraged and perpetrated by outside forces, particularly separatist fundamentalist forces, then they should be indicted in the International Criminal Court. If they were home-grown, then it is a matter for the police in China and we must support them. We live in a small world. We must live together. The EU is a clear example of this. Supporting separatism anywhere in the world is against the spirit of the EU. We cannot work to unite Europe at home and encourage the break-up of China abroad. That is the road to chaos and conflict.
| null |
Csaba Sógor
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The question is where do we stand on this issue? Are we on the side of China or Tiananmen Square? Are we on the side of China or Tibet? Are we on the side of China or the Uighur region? Are we on the side of 1.2 billion Chinese or 8 million Uighurs? Are we on the side of repression, the introduction of an alien way of life, a comfortable life, good health and money, or of a peasant, nomad past, which admittedly entails poverty and widespread disease, but preserves one’s own culture, and of freedom? The speeches made by one or two of my fellow Members echo the language of the dictatorship of the former Eastern European regimes. Can a mother of 11 really be a terrorist? A woman who served time in prison, and two of whose children are still in prison? Where do we stand then? That is the question. Are we on the side of token autonomy or real autonomy? Are we on the side of repression, an alien way of life, the exploitation of the Uighur region’s natural assets, or of the preservation of cultures, freedom and peoples’ right of self-determination? It is obvious to me whose side I am on. I hope that it is clear to my fellow Members too. We must make friends with China so that it can learn from us. However, we must do this by showing an example in the areas of human rights, freedoms, self-determination and autonomy. We still have a huge amount of work to do. On this point, I am thinking about the countries which have recently joined.
| null |
Emine Bozkurt
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
I have listened to the introductions from both the Council and the Commission and maybe it is to do with the interpreting, but I have not heard the word Uighurs once, and it is, of course, the Uighurs that we are discussing today. There are hundreds of dead whose passing we regret, and many more wounded besides. The European Union stands firmly for fundamental rights, human rights, civil rights and peaceful demonstration. We are seeing all of these seriously repressed. Needless to say, I heard in the introductions about the need for dialogue. That need is something that I, too, very much want to stress. That dialogue is tremendously important. I would really like to find out from the Council and the Commission, however, what tangible measures they are going to put in place in the short term.
| null |
Reinhard Bütikofer
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, we are having this debate on the basis of the universal nature of human rights, but also on the basis of the need for a global partnership. A harmonious society has been mentioned. That is one of the slogans of the Communist Party of China, but it is also something more: it reflects a deep hope of the Chinese people. A harmonious society is not simply the same as masking authoritarian relations. I believe it could be our job to support the Chinese people in their realisation of a harmonious society. A partnership involves speaking out clearly. When we talk about Xinjiang the word ‘Uighurs’ should also be mentioned. However, clear speaking is not the same as being confrontational – we should avoid that. I would like to say one last thing to Mr Posselt. He spoke of separatism. Now, I know Mr Posselt that your Bavarian party knows something about this, but I think that we should instead follow Mr Brok and talk about continuing with the One China policy.
| null |
Struan Stevenson
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it would be a great mistake to place China in the same category in this debate today as we discussed Iran. The EU enjoys a very good relationship with China and I think we have to take care that our discussions on the recent events in Urumqi are accurate and based on fact. The incident that took place on 5 July involved a premeditated attack on the Han Chinese population of that city by the Uighurs. As we know, certain militants among the Uighur population of Xinjiang are Islamic fundamentalists who demand a separate state. They mounted a violent attack that led to the deaths of 137 Han Chinese. So the vast majority of those killed were Han Chinese. The Chinese Government quite properly deployed police and military personnel to quell the violence and stop the retaliatory attacks by the Han population on the Uighurs. What else would anyone expect them to do? So let us base our criticism on facts and not take unfair records against the Chinese.
| null |
Sabine Lösing
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I think that this conflict is very often presented in a very one-sided manner. I agree with the previous speaker that in the present case it is frequently a matter of attacks on Han Chinese by Uighurs and indeed that some of these attacks are racially motivated. (Heckling) I read an interview with a Uighur woman, for example, who said: Would you like to be governed by yellow communists? The Uighurs enjoy many privileges in their region, for example they are allowed to have more children, they are allowed to practice their religion even during working hours and there are many other examples. Many of the local Han Chinese are also envious of them. We ought therefore to be very discriminating in our observation of this situation and investigate the causes and effects. Sometimes problems do not lie where they seem to at first glance. We should be careful not to take a one-sided position. We ought to support the Chinese in solving their problems. The one-sided view that is so often presented in this House is, in my opinion, dangerous. The Chinese Government certainly has shortcomings in its policy towards minority groups and it has its failures too. However, it is also showing the will to improve in many areas. We should therefore help it in this regard through cooperation – and indeed also critical cooperation – based on trust.
| null |
Carl Bildt
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I think this debate has really reflected the complexities of the issues that we face. What has been addressed here are issues ranging from the different system that China has and the evolution of that particular system, the importance that we attach to human rights and the need to help China develop in the direction of a more open society, better respecting those human rights, as well as the problems attached to minority rights, problems that are there in China. But China is unfortunately not unique in the world in facing these issues and the violence, the ethnic violence, that has been seen in the last few days on the streets of Urumqi. Ethnic violence is always evil. It should be condemned and we can only support those who try to bring reconciliation in this particular situation based on respect for human rights, knowing from our own history the complexity of those issues. Mr Bütikofer referred to the concept of a harmonious society. We all want to develop and live in harmonious societies and clearly we need to see what we can do in order to help China develop in the direction of a society that is seen as harmonious by each and every one of the citizens of China. They are not there yet. Few societies as a matter of fact are, but it has been fairly obvious. Otherwise let me note that in the initial statements from Mr Brok, Mr Severin and Mr Watson, I found lots of wisdom that could guide our further deliberations as we move on with the important relationship that we seek with China, understanding the complexity of that relationship in all its dimensions.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The debate is closed. Written statements (Rule 149)
| null |
Helmut Scholz
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
de
| 2009-07-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
China (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Conflict resolution for millions of Uighurs in China – dialogue not condemnation. We lament the bloody clashes, the dead and wounded in Xinjiang-Uighur. The actions of the police and security forces were excessive and harm the Chinese Government’s goals of growth and stability. At the same time it is wrong to accuse China of cultural genocide. The Government is striving to obtain a balance between the autonomy of minority groups and modernisation in a multi-ethnic state. It is also up to us as a partner to support China’s development in terms of democracy and the rule of law, without neglecting the special historical, geographic and cultural aspects of this state. Biased information will prevent dialogue, and it will not compensate for a policy with an inadequate guarantee of human rights. China is an important partner for Europe, alongside the US and Russia. Combating the financial crisis, fighting poverty, stopping climate change, providing energy security and guaranteeing the water supply – none of these things can be achieved without the efforts of the People’s Republic of China. The majority of Uighurs are dismayed over the events of the past week and above all want to live in peace once again. The Chinese Government knows that this conflict cannot be solved with violence. We can support the dialogue between the Han Chinese and the Uighurs and other minority groups instead of continuing our decade-long interference from the outside with our inapt methods. Establishing a structured dialogue aimed at developing the rule of law in China is a more important task for the European Parliament.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-07-16T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Announcement by the PresidentVideo of the speechesPV
|
(After the speech by Mrs Harms, see item 4.1). Yes, Mrs Harms. Regarding the matter that you have just mentioned, I must inform the House that President Buzek has made a public statement, which I will read to you.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-14T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Statements by the PresidentVideo of the speechesPV
|
Just over a fortnight ago, I took part in the ceremonies at Westerplatte to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War. That war plunged Europe into terror, claimed millions of victims and divided our continent for nearly half a century. We should never forget that war and violence could once again return to this Europe of ours. I must refer to another act of violence that took place this summer. Two officers of the Spanish Civil Guard were killed by ETA whilst performing their duties. I am sorry to have to inform Parliament of the death of Mr Ernest Gline, a former Belgian Member of this House, who passed away on 10 August at the age of 78. Mr Gline was a Member of the European Parliament between 1968 and 1994. He also served as Chairman of the Socialist Group between 1979 and 1984. I regret to have to inform you also of the death of Sir Christopher Prout, a former British Member of this House, who passed away on 12 July at the age of 67. Sir Christopher Prout, who subsequently became Lord Kingsland, was a Member of the European Parliament between 1979 and 1994. He also served as Chairman of the Group of European Democrats between 1987 and 1994. Before we move on to our discussions, I invite you to join with me in honouring the memory of those who laid down their lives in the defence of Europe, and of those others who devoted their lives to its service, working to transform it into what it now is. (The House rose and observed a minute’s silence)
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The next item is the presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year.
| null |
Hans Lindblad
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it is a tremendous privilege for me to be here today. It makes me feel very humble and I am delighted to have the chance to present the Council’s draft general budget to you. Europe is facing considerable challenges. The economic situation looked significantly more worrying six months ago, but it seems to have stabilised. The risk scenario is more balanced and the risk of being drawn deeper into a downward spiral has reduced. However, we face significant problems in the form of rising unemployment, growing budgetary deficits and increasing debt. In the light of this, there is a great need to maintain public finances that are sustainable in the long term. Many countries have a long way to go to balance their public finances. Demographics will exert huge pressure on public finances. The challenges we face with regard to the climate will require new resources and the redistribution of existing resources. Overall, this means, in our opinion, that the budget that we are to agree on should reflect a high degree of restraint in order to leave room for future needs, with the emphasis on European added value and investments which, in the short term, can bring us out of the economic crisis and, in the long term, can also strengthen our competitiveness. The Council’s draft, which was adopted unanimously, deals with and contributes to meeting these challenges. It is a disciplined budget and a sound one from the point of view of state finances. It will promote research, education, competitiveness, innovation and the building of infrastructures, and it will promote cohesion. The Council’s draft also contains margins for coping with unforeseen events. The logic behind our draft general budget is quite simple. If we want to stimulate growth, employment and prosperity, the textbooks say that we should pursue a sustainable, credible and cautious policy, but with investment in education, research and infrastructure and in levelling out wage differences throughout the EU. This is precisely what we have attempted to do. The Council’s draft is balanced, while still being ambitious. Compared with the 2009 budget, our commitments have increased by 1.1% and the payment appropriations by nearly 4%. Our draft and the agreement that we want to reach must meet the following fundamental requirements, which were also applied during the Council’s first reading. The budget must ensure that the EU’s various political priorities for 2010 are adequately financed. We in the EU must be able to react quickly to the challenges that await us. There must be an emphasis on providing European added value. Budgetary discipline and sound economic management are required. Otherwise, we will not be able to take the gradual steps towards balancing public finances once again. It is important to respect the ceilings. The EU must have sufficient flexibility to cope with future needs and unforeseen events. It is vital for the EU budget to have adequate margins. The draft general budget that we are tabling represents EUR 138 billion in commitment appropriations and EUR 121 billion in payment appropriations. The reductions that the Council has made in relation to the preliminary draft budget presented by the Commission are based on a detailed analysis of the budget implementation, the budget forecast alerts and activity declarations, and we are looking at the capacity available to implement programmes and measures. The degree of implementation and the absorption capacity have been key factors in our analysis. I will now take a brief look at the individual headings. Sub-heading 1A, research and innovation, is the most important element, and adequate funds have been secured in our draft budget. Another area to which more resources will be directed is projects within the energy and infrastructure sectors. If we adjust for the accounting effects of the economic recovery plan, the increase in this area amounts to around 8%. Eight percent! That is a lot, and as you all know, the financing of the European Economic Recovery Plan will be one of those topics that we will need to discuss during the autumn. Under sub-heading 1B, the Council accepted the commitment appropriations proposed by the Commission. As regards payments, the Council believes that certain reductions can be made in relation to the preliminary draft budget, but I would like to stress that our draft nevertheless represents an increase in payment appropriations of 3.2% compared to 2009. Under heading 2, the Council is proposing substantial increases with regard to both commitment appropriations and payment appropriations compared with 2009, by 4.5% and 9.5%, respectively, if we adjust for the accounting effects of the recovery plan. With regard to heading 3, the Council made only a few small adjustments to the Commission’s preliminary draft budget. Sufficient resources will be available for migration policy, including Frontex. As regards heading 4, it is extremely important to leave a substantial margin to the ceiling under this heading in order to be able to cope with unforeseen needs in the best possible way. The Council therefore secured a margin of around EUR 310 million in its first reading. This is particularly justified in light of the letter of amendment, which includes additional needs in this area. As regards the Emergency Aid Reserve, the Council accepted the Commission’s proposal regarding commitment appropriations. The common foreign and security policy is increasing in importance and the Council will therefore ensure that adequate funds are available for this. With regard to administration, the Council made certain targeted reductions in view of the economic situation and the specificities of each institution. The aim is to ensure that administrative expenditure does not increase faster than inflation. The institutions’ requests for additional posts for new activities were not accepted, except for the new agencies that are planned for 2010 and for Frontex. At our conciliation meeting in July, it was highlighted once again how important it is for the recruitment associated with the enlargements of 2004 and 2007 to be carried out, and we agreed on a joint statement. On the same occasion, your representatives indicated that they were willing to try to find a common approach in respect of the building policy of the EU institutions and bodies. I am sure that such a statement will, fortunately, be forthcoming later in the autumn. Before I close, I would like to mention, and indeed to emphasise, the positive atmosphere that prevailed in our meetings with the European Parliament. I believe that constructive cooperation is the only way to achieve a sound budget.
| null |
Algirdas Šemeta
|
EU Commissioner
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, it is a great pleasure for me to have an opportunity to speak to you this morning. I know that the first stages of this budgetary procedure – in particular the July conciliation – took place in a very positive atmosphere, and I hope we can build on this cooperation in the coming weeks. We still have some way to go in the 2010 budget procedures, and there are other important issues to agree on, such as the second phase of the European Economic Recovery Plan, so it is crucial that all three institutions work closely together. Turning to the actual situation following the Council’s first reading and the establishment of the draft budget for 2010, the Commission acknowledges that the cuts proposed by the Council are less severe than in previous years. However, there are some particular concerns which I would like to highlight. The Commission regrets the Council’s cut of EUR 1.8 billion in payment appropriations. These cuts are proportionately more significant for Headings 1A and 4, and sent a negative message in the priority areas of growth in jobs and the EU’s international role, not least in relation to pre-accession assistance. The cuts proposed to the administrative support expenditure allowance, the administrative allowance for research and the agencies are particularly harsh. Rather than taking into account the specific situation of each agency, the cuts – with few exceptions – have been general, regardless of the stage of development or tasks of the agency concerned. The cuts in administrative support expenditure will hamper the implementation of programmes, particularly in the field of research and for external actions. I am hopeful that, in preparing its first reading, Parliament will seek to redress this situation. Although the cuts in Headings 1B and 2 are regrettable, I am partly reassured by the Council’s proposed declaration on payments and by the second opportunity to examine the needs for agriculture in the upcoming letter of amendment which the Commission will present at the end of October. As announced, the Commission has now presented the budgetary authority with an amending letter to update the needs for Heading 4. The key elements of this concern: an additional EUR 95 million in commitment and EUR 60 million in payment appropriations to support the Palestinian Authority and reconstruction efforts in Gaza; and the need to consider the establishment of Bananas Accompanying Measures in view of the possible trade agreement that will affect the preferential regime of ACP banana-supplying countries. There is also an additional EUR 50 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 20 million in payment appropriations to assist developing countries in combating climate change, which should help to promote a successful outcome to the December Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Under Heading 5 (Administration), the Commission was particularly modest in its PDB requests with a proposed increase in the Commission’s administrative expenditure of only 0.9% compared to 2009. While this point has been acknowledged by the Presidency, it is rather disappointing that the Council has introduced further cuts to the Commission’s administrative budget. In conclusion I am hopeful that the European Parliament will restore the appropriations cut by the Council and I am confident that our ongoing negotiations between the three institutions will be constructive and that we will achieve a satisfactory outcome to this budget procedure.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Thank you, Mr Šemeta, for presenting the position of the Commission, and also for keeping to time, which is very important. I would like to say that this is an initial discussion. We are now going to discuss this in the Committee on Budgets and in other committees, and the main discussion will take place in a few weeks.
| null |
László Surján
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
en
|
hu
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
I am going to speak in my mother tongue because I am hoping for a Europe where this act is a natural right in every parliament, not to mention in other areas of public life as well. In that Europe, there is no law preventing anyone from using their mother tongue, not even in Slovakia. I also expected that the current financial crisis would not only reduce production and increase unemployment, but also provide us with an opportunity to improve the European Union’s budget through reform measures. Parliament already expressed its point of view in February. It was encouraging that the European Commission and Council expressed their agreement with it. Based on what I know about the draft, I am sad to say that the attempt to translate the fine words into the language of numbers was not a complete success. It is time to face up to the fact that no one is happy with the European Union’s budget. The budget’s revenue side is a serious burden for Member States, but the sum available is not sufficient for them to achieve their objectives. We are far away from achieving both full employment and a knowledge-based society. We spend large sums on agriculture, but dairy farmers, for instance, are affected by an unmanageable crisis. The biggest item on the expenditure side is the cohesion policy, but the gaps between regions are growing instead of decreasing. Researchers born and trained in Europe are working outside the European Union. We are therefore lagging behind when it comes to innovation as well. We hoped that the crisis would also provide an opportunity for us to have a shake-up and make the European Union’s budget more successful and tangible for its citizens. We also hoped to use the budget not only in compliance with the rules and without any corruption, but also to take a look at the expenses and consider which programmes actually provide value and success for our money. What can we do now? Parliament will endeavour to shape the budget in such a way that its message will be clearer to the EU’s citizens. We want to increase those items which help tackle the crisis. With this in mind, we are putting forward our thoughts on implementing the economic stimulus plan. We want to tackle head on the challenges posed by climate change as well. What we would like is for the financial crisis to be tackled effectively, not only using a couple of billion euros from the plan earmarked for this purpose, but also with every item in the budget, so that Europeans realise that the European Union is not a superfluous expense, but an effective tool for solving their problems. I call on my fellow Members, the Council and Commission to support this.
| null |
Vladimír Maňka
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
en
|
sk
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Secretary of State, Commissioner, we can surely agree that when drawing up the European Parliament’s budget, we must focus on our core mission, which is legislative work. Issues unconnected with this must be excluded from the budget as much as possible. We will discuss the final form of the budget today in an arbitration process involving the Presidency of the European Parliament and the Committee on Budgets. At this point, I would like to thank the representatives of the political groupings. In the meeting of the Committee on Budgets yesterday, they backed proposals to reduce the budget and measures which will lead to the better use of financial resources. We are constantly confronted with numerous shortcomings that prevent us from using our resources in a fully efficient manner. One example of this is the security for the buildings in which we are conducting these debates today. As you know, we spend four days a month in Strasbourg. Despite this, there were security guards stationed at both entrances 365 days a year until recently. The new Secretary General of the European Parliament and his colleagues discovered this and implemented measures which will bring annual savings of more than EUR 2 million. Another example is the Court of Auditors’ reports on translations. Insufficient planning and insufficient communication or a complete absence of communication regarding the availability of translation resources prevents these resources being used effectively. The organisation which is supposed to provide translations often instructs external translators automatically without even checking whether there is any spare capacity available in the internal organisation. It is for this reason that we are proposing a reserve of 5% against the resources earmarked for translation in the budgets of the various institutions. We shall release this reserve when they show that they have tried to make full use of the resources of the internal organisation. In the area of translations alone, we can save around EUR 11 million annually. There are many similar examples. Most of them have a common denominator: we are making little use of independent studies into the use of resources and the organisation of work. I believe that the political will shown yesterday by the representatives of the various political groupings in the discussions of the Committee on Budgets will bear fruit. Expenses for the purchase, upkeep and rental of buildings form one of the main administrative expense items of EU institutions. There have been various cases in the past where institutions have purchased or rented property using methods that were not entirely efficient. According to the Court of Auditors, the institutions do not cooperate in these areas or even fail to assess their own policies. We have therefore asked the European Parliament administration to draw up a medium-term strategic document on buildings. We wanted to adopt a sensible decision on this matter in the first reading. There is a need to draw up a joint policy on buildings, not only in the European Parliament, but also within the framework of all institutions, and to ensure better cooperation in this area. Secretary of State, I am delighted that, like us, the Council has adopted this as a priority objective and I would like to express my thanks for that.
| null |
Alain Lamassoure
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, may I first of all congratulate Mr Šemeta on the confirmation obtained yesterday of his appointment as Commissioner responsible for the budget. We are convinced that we will enjoy the same quality of relations with him as those which we established with his predecessor, and we wish him a political career that is as brilliant as that of Mrs Grybauskaitė. Mr President, we are going through a period of global crisis, of preparation for major diplomatic events and of institutional uncertainty within the Union itself. In a period such as this, the Committee on Budgets will seek to adopt a cooperative attitude. As our rapporteur said, we regret the cuts made by the Council in the Commission’s proposals but, at the same time, we understand that the state of the Member States’ public finances prevents them from going much further this year. For the 2010 budget, as has been said, we have an obligation to produce results: namely, balancing the financing of the 2010 section of the recovery plan. We know that redeployments will be necessary, but they must not focus on other political priorities previously decided on together by Parliament and by the Council. Beyond 2010, Parliament will hope to undertake work jointly with the Commission, the Council, the Swedish Presidency and the future Spanish Presidency on three major issues for the future. If, of course, things turn out as we hope in Ireland, the first issue will be the implementation of the procedure, schedule and working methods required by the application of the Treaty of Lisbon. The second issue will be the mid-term review of the financial perspective. Between the joint decision on the multiannual financial framework taken in May 2006 and now, there has been the financial crisis, the very strong pressures on the price of energy, raw materials and even foodstuffs, and the negotiations on climate change. There has also been – I am sorry to say – the failure of the Lisbon Strategy, as is plain to see today. It is therefore a thorough review of our multiannual guidelines that we need. This will be the first task of the new Commission. Lastly, the third and final issue will be the reform of the resources that make up the European budget. We knew before the crisis that none of the Member States wanted to pay for Europe’s spending any more. Since the crisis, none of the Member States can pay for this spending any more. Our financial contribution to the economic recovery will represent scarcely 0.03% of the Union’s GDP. We are fully aware of the extreme difficulty of the issue, but the European Parliament started work on it four years ago with the national parliaments, and it intends to put itself in a position to propose some areas of work so as to launch the debate next year.
| null |
Hans Lindblad
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, we have heard from both the Commission and the European Parliament that we will have several difficult issues to deal with during the autumn. Hopefully, we will have some easy ones to deal with, too. One of the most difficult issues is going to be the recovery plan and how it is to be financed. At the same time, I am very hopeful that we will succeed. I know that we will succeed. There is no alternative. Another issue that we face, both in the short term and in the long term, is, of course, the climate and the financing of climate policy. Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for allowing me to speak here today.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Presentation by the Council of the draft general budget for the 2010 financial year (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The debate is closed. I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on his appointment. Commissioner, great careers await commissioners from Lithuania. We wish you much success, both in the Commission and in the future. Your predecessor is, today, the Head of State in Lithuania.
| null |
President
|
EUROPARL President
|
N/A
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on immigration, the role of Frontex, and cooperation among Member States.
| null |
Tobias Billström
|
EU Council President
|
N/A
|
en
|
sv
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, issues concerning migration are always topical in the EU’s work. An important element in dealing with migratory flows is border control. Free movement for people within the EU and the absence of controls at internal borders bring a shared responsibility and an increased requirement for proper and effective management of our external borders. The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) is responsible for coordinating and supporting Member States’ efforts to monitor and control the EU’s external borders. Frontex is an important element in the EU’s integrated border management strategy. Since its launch in 2005, Frontex’s capacity has been progressively expanded. In line with an increased budget, Frontex now plays an even greater role in managing the operational cooperation between Member States in connection with the control of the EU’s external borders. The Agency is currently coordinating a number of joint operations and pilot projects at maritime, land and air borders with a view to combating illegal immigration, with a particular emphasis on certain high-risk areas such as the southern maritime borders of the EU, although the northern and eastern borders are also covered. In the Council, we have, on several occasions, emphasised the need to develop and strengthen Frontex. The Council’s conclusions from 2008 give the political priorities for the continued development of the Agency. In the short term, it was stressed that Frontex must be allocated the necessary resources and that maximum use must be made of the equipment provided by the Member States within the framework of the Centralised Record of Available Technical Equipment (CRATE). The Council also urged Frontex to foster cooperation with other border control authorities, including customs authorities, and with third countries with regard to border control. In the long term, it was emphasised that the future development of Frontex operations should still continue to be carried out in stages. The Council welcomed the Commission’s plan to examine how Frontex’s mandate can be extended to enable increased cooperation with third countries. An evaluation of the Frontex Regulation is currently being carried out and the Commission will present a proposal for possible amendments at the beginning of 2010. The Council is looking forward to adopting a position on the Commission’s proposed amendments together with the European Parliament. It was also emphasised in the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which was adopted by the European Council in October 2008, that the Agency’s role and resources for cooperation need to be strengthened. The Pact also referred to the possibility of establishing separate divisions within Frontex, as conditions differ so markedly, for example, at the land border in the east compared with the maritime border in the south. In the light of the events in the Mediterranean, the European Council, in its conclusions from June 2009, also emphasised the need to increase efforts to prevent and combat illegal immigration and to prevent any future human tragedies at the EU’s southern maritime border. The need to tighten up border controls and the need for clear rules for joint patrols and the landing of those that are rescued, as well as the increased use of joint repatriation flights, were given particular emphasis. In conclusion, I would like to clarify the fact that the situation in the Mediterranean does not only involve taking action in the area of border control. This situation requires a broad spectrum of both short-term and long-term measures. The starting point in this regard should be the EU’s global approach to migration, which includes cooperation and measures within the entire migration policy area. Enhanced cooperation with the countries of origin and transit is fundamental and the dialogue with third countries should be intensified in areas such as legal immigration, migration and development, capacity building and the repatriation of people who have no need of protection. This dialogue must be based on the principles of solidarity and shared responsibility.
| null |
Jacques Barrot
|
EU Commission Vice-President
|
N/A
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, migration is a priority issue that will be keeping the institution very busy, and I wish to thank Mr Tobias Billström, who is well acquainted with this problem. We are in the process of drafting an immigration policy based on three pillars: respect for the right of asylum, the fight against illegal immigration, and European coordination to provide for legal migration. Access to EU territory must be gained in accordance with certain rules, in compliance with national policies and with common standards that the Union implements, and not illegally, often at the cost of human lives. The Mediterranean must remain the link between our civilisations rather than a place of misery and desolation. The challenge of illegal immigration cannot be solved exclusively by those Member States that are more particularly exposed because their borders coincide with the external border of the Union. It really is important for all of the EU Member States to show solidarity in the face of this challenge. The Union has already adopted common rules, has devoted resources to this and has developed significant means of action. That said, it is true that new initiatives will be necessary given the scale of the illegal migratory flows. The challenge of illegal migration does, of course, require an effective prevention strategy, implemented in partnership with all of the countries located along the migratory routes. The European Union is doing all it can to develop these dialogues and this cooperation. The aim of this global approach is to deal with all of the main dimensions of immigration together and in a balanced way. As Mr Billström just said, this approach guides our work in the Mediterranean, which is the meeting point of the migratory flows coming from the different regions and passing through various countries in Asia and Africa. The Commission has made a firm commitment to promote the appropriate bilateral regional cooperation frameworks. Faced with the proliferation of unacceptable human tragedies, I travelled to these European access points: Lampedusa, Malta, the Canary Islands and Greece. I started a debate within the Commission and I referred suggestions of a more united and effective European policy to my ministerial colleagues within the Council. The work subsequently carried out formed the basis of a series of decisions taken by the June European Council. Since then, the Commission has been working on three major themes. Firstly, asylum: the European Council called for the coordination of voluntary measures concerning the internal distribution of recipients of international protection who reside in the Member States most exposed to these pressures. The Commission responded to this appeal by launching, in July, a pilot project to help Malta. It has made provision for Community funding opportunities for Member States that will be willing to show solidarity with Malta. To date, France has agreed to resettle almost 100 refugees on its territory. I should like this gesture, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, to be repeated by other Member States. On 2 September, I also presented the European Parliament and the Council with a communication proposing a common European programme on the resettlement of refugees from third countries. I know, Mr Billström, that this programme is close to your heart. It outlines common annual priorities in relation to resettlement, together with proposals on how to make more effective use of the financial aid granted to the Member States under the European Refugee Fund. The European Asylum Support Office must be able to play a dominant role in the effective implementation of these initiatives. The Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the creation of this Office is currently being examined within the Community institutions. I should really like it if Parliament and the Council could come to an agreement under the Swedish Presidency in order to make this Support Office operational in 2010, and I am very much counting on our Commission and on the Swedish Presidency. That is all as regards asylum. The second theme is that of the external borders. As Mr Billström explained very well, the European Council wanted the border control operations coordinated by Frontex to be strengthened. It asked us to lay down clear rules of engagement for the joint patrols, and precise provisions for the disembarkation of rescued persons and for the organisation of common return flights. We must also examine how Frontex can cooperate with third countries. The budget for financing Frontex operations in 2009 has been increased to EUR 36 million, and we are currently looking into how Frontex can organise the repatriation of illegal migrants. It should be pointed out that the border control operations are conducted in accordance with Community law, in particular with the Schengen Borders Code. Fundamental rights and the prohibition of return must be respected. In maritime areas, these operations must also be conducted in accordance with international maritime law. However, these rules are not interpreted or applied uniformly by the Member States. That is why we are going to try to see how these rules can be developed and clarified so that Community law and international law can be applied better within the context of these operations. We are also busy preparing a proposal that will allow changes to the regulation establishing the Frontex agency and its working methods. This proposal will be submitted in early 2010. It will cover the European Parliament’s report and the assessment that will have been carried out by the agency in accordance with Article 33 of the Frontex regulation. The aim is to optimise and strengthen the role of Frontex in border cooperation matters. I now come to the third theme. The European Council stressed the need for enhanced cooperation with the main countries of origin and of transit and asked the Commission to look at possible ways of cooperating in practice with these countries. To follow up on this request, the Commission has put a great deal of effort into stepping up the dialogue and cooperation with Libya and Turkey, which are the two key countries on the illegal migration routes in the Mediterranean. With regard to Libya, Mr Billström and I sent a letter in July proposing to our Libyan partners that we cooperate in a number of areas to ensure the joint and balanced management of migratory flows from Libya. We explained to the Libyan authorities that we were willing to help them not only to strengthen their capacities to prevent migrants from illegally entering and leaving their territory, but also to improve the treatment of migrants in accordance with human rights and with international rules and to identify and assist migrants who need international protection. The Commission already cofinances pilot measures through the United Nations HCR, the International Organisation for Migration and the Italian Ministry of the Interior. However, the only way in which we will be able to give the required scope to our action is with a clear commitment from the Libyan authorities. I make no secret of the fact, Mr Billström, that I am somewhat eagerly awaiting the reply to our letter. With regard to Turkey, the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security, Jonathan Faull, is today on an assignment in Ankara to investigate the extent to which, and the means by which, an increase in cooperation could encourage the Turkish authorities to become more involved in a more responsible form of migration management, with the aim both of re-admitting illegal immigrants and, above all, of providing international protection for refugees. If Turkey and Libya are willing to take up our offers, we and Mr Billström will be able to visit these two countries before the end of the year. Finally, I should like to mention the Stockholm programme, which must lay the foundations for a more effective common policy and which will enable us to promote coordinated immigration in the spirit of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum. We submitted our proposals in June, and they were given a favourable reception at the informal ministerial debate held in July by the Swedish Presidency. I shall not repeat what I said just now, that is, the three major themes of this policy, a common asylum system in line with our humanitarian traditions, more effective control of illegal immigration through more integrated management of our internal borders and our visa policy, and then, of course, the increased effectiveness of our fight against human trafficking and the implementation of a specific return policy aimed at the long-term reintegration of migrants into their community of origin, as well as the opening up to legal migration within a framework that guarantees that the needs of host countries are accommodated, without forgetting the needs of countries of origin or respect for the rights of migrants. There you have it. I have overrun slightly, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, but I wanted to follow on from Mr Billström’s very sound explanations by highlighting the major themes of a policy, of a European strategy that I believe is now beginning to take shape. Our Member States still need to show the full solidarity and the determination necessary to implement this strategy. I am very much counting on the European Parliament to help us in this matter.
| null |
Simon Busuttil
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
mt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Thank you, Mr President, I would also like to welcome Minister Billström and, in particular, the Vice-President of the European Commission, Jacques Barrot. Allow me Mr President, to congratulate and thank the Vice-President of the European Commission for the considerable and genuine efforts that he has undertaken in the field of immigration and asylum. I would like to extend my appreciation and gratitude to Mr Barrot for the passion with which he has chosen to carry out this work, and for the concrete initiatives which he has launched in this difficult, controversial and sensitive area. This brings me on to the first point I would like to raise, Mr President, regarding the complexity of this subject. It is easy to point fingers at one country or other: however, we have to analyse the situation seriously and thoroughly. Otherwise we run the risk of falling prey to the absurd. Allow me to give an example. Lately, there has been criticism levelled at the Italian Government because they promptly sent arriving immigrants back to Libya. However, we have to understand that as a result of Italy’s actions, the number of immigrants that have chosen to brave the hazardous journey and risk their lives have decreased considerably this year. It is important to realise that this return system has dealt a big blow to organised crime and human traffickers. This means that while it is doubtlessly necessary to respect immigrants’ right to asylum, it is likewise imperative to persevere in our efforts to put a stop once and for all to this tragedy which is taking place in the Mediterranean. What is just as important is to go on battling human traffickers who are exploiting the misery and difficulties that immigrants wishing to cross over to Europe are experiencing. Therefore, we must keep the complexity of the subject in mind at all times. I would like to mention some other points. We must improve upon Frontex, especially with regard to the potential cooperation that could take place between countries, and which include concrete issues such as those tied to return policies involving more than one country. Unfortunately, in this field, Frontex has not yet made enough effort. The initiatives cited by Vice-President Barrot also merit attention, such as the general resettlement programme, the pilot project for countries like Malta and the establishment of an asylum office. These are initiatives that need to be put into place instantly. To conclude, another equally important factor that requires attention is cooperation with Libya and other third countries which are the departure points for immigrants. Without the cooperation of these countries we will get nowhere.
| null |
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
es
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Mr Billström, Commissioner Barrot, I agree with the importance and support the emphasis that both the Presidency and the Commission have placed on identifying this as one of the most influential dimensions of globalisation that needs a European response. This is an area in which Europe can make sense, by adding value to the management of one of the most unequivocal dimensions of globalisation, namely the unprecedented dimension taken on by migration, and therefore migratory flows and their impact in all areas of importance to European integration. This phenomenon cannot be tackled by any of the Member States on their own, based on their individual capacities. As a result, we need a common policy, which has still not been developed. Everything that has been done to develop this common policy, which must be developed, should have occurred under the European Constitution and under the Treaty of Lisbon. However, this policy has still not been developed. Everything that has been done is in anticipation of what must be done and is still in the very early stages. However, it is clear that the response must be coherent with the European identity. As a result, commitment to the correction of inequalities at source, by reinforcing development cooperation, is the first point. Secondly, we need to reinforce the fight against the political and criminal dimensions of this phenomenon, by also tackling those organisations which traffic human beings. At the same time, we must improve information on the risks of illegal immigration and on illegal trafficking, training at source and illegal employment. The response must involve legal migration, as an alternative to illegal immigration. Finally, we must make a serious commitment to human rights. That involves the dimensions of asylum and refugees, and also compliance with the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which was signed in October 2008. However, in the meantime, we must reinforce the European external border, in terms of both its control and our joint responsibility for it. The impact of illegal immigration in Italy, Spain or Greece – as evident in Spain in relation to the southern Mediterranean border, and also in the Canary Islands, with the canoes that arrive full of desperate people – is not purely a Spanish or an Italian matter. It is a European matter, which does not simply require solidarity with Spain or Italy, or even less a hope that Spain and Italy will comply with the European model in their bilateral relations with African countries. No, it is a joint responsibility, which requires a joint response. That is why the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has supported the strengthening of Frontex and also the increase of its budget, which we hope will be supported in this House, because we support the emphasis and importance placed on this matter by the Swedish Presidency.
| null |
Sonia Alfano
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you Mr Barrot and Mr Billström. Back on 31 August, I tabled a priority question to the Commission. It is true that the number of migrants reaching Italian and Libyan shores has fallen, but this is because the number of dead which the Mediterranean Sea continues to receive has risen. Alas, the Mediterranean has now become a mass grave and the Berlusconi Government, to wit, the Italian Government, has signed an agreement with Libya which unfortunately allows Italy to refuse entry not only to migrants, but also refugees from countries where there is persecution or civil war, such as Somalia and Eritrea, and denies these poor people the right to seek asylum, thereby breaching every international rule and the Geneva Convention in particular. I would remind you that non-refoulement is a principle which knows no geographical boundaries and which cannot be haggled over or negotiated under any circumstances. We do not want to continue thinking that ultimately, this Italy-Libya agreement boils down to economic interests worth around EUR 5 000 billion. I demand that the Commission does not – if this is its intention – conclude an EU-Libya agreement similar to the Italian one, as we have seen the results of that despicable agreement. I repeat, alas this agreement forces these people to undergo torture, because this is what we are dealing with: the detention centres to which they are taken in Libya are torture, according to press reports and also photographs, for example, photographs which show many of these immigrants in Ganfuda prison, 10 kilometres from Benghazi. This is torture, which I do not believe is accounted for in any friendship or institutional agreements. As highlighted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the non-refoulement principle prevents people being returned to territories where their lives could be considered to be in danger or their freedom could be threatened. Sending these people back to Libya which, I would again remind you, has neither signed nor ratified the Geneva Convention, seems truly unbelievable. Moreover, to add insult to injury, illegal immigration is a criminal offence in Italy so, for example, after the dramatic landing at the end of August in which many Somalis lost their lives, those few, I think four or five Somalis who managed to reach their destination have, among other things, been accused of immigration and are therefore now being prosecuted under Italian law. I call on the Commission now to take real action, to assess whether the Italy-Libya agreement complies with international law and finally bring about a decisive change of course by not supporting the Italian Government’s nefarious policy.
| null |
Hélène Flautre
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the last time we held a debate after a tragedy in the Mediterranean was on 1 April. You will recall that many hundreds of migrants perished off the Libyan coast. We had called for an investigation. To date we have received no information concerning the circumstances of that tragedy. Since then, as you know, in mid-August, 73 Africans were found dead off Lampedusa. On 25 August, 57 Eritrean migrants were finally rescued after a lengthy spell in Maltese waters. On 31 August, 75 Somalis were refused entry to Libya. Really, the external borders of the European Union have become murderous. This is the title of a report due out by the NGO ‘Migreurop’, which I invite all of you, ladies and gentlemen, to obtain and to read assiduously. Confronted with this situation, Mr Barrot, you refer to some key issues. You refer to the right of asylum, to the right to international protection. You should also refer to the right of any person to leave any country, and to the obligation placed on everyone to help others, whoever they may be. This is international maritime law. These situations are on the increase, and they are also occurring more and more at the border between Turkey and Greece. This is why I do not believe, Mr Barrot, that strengthening Frontex’s resources will be the answer to this situation. I believe that the European Union, today, is up against its own project. The European Union was born out of the refusal to deny others their dignity, and it is to this that it must remain true.
| null |
Timothy Kirkhope
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the Commission’s joint EU resettlement programme certainly has noble ambitions, which aim to encourage greater cooperation between national governments regarding the resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers. However, as a British Conservative, I do remain worried about its implementation. We do not want to see the continuation of problems like those we have had at Sangatte in France. I think that cooperation and solidarity across the European Union is, of course, important when discussing the burdens that nations face but we must better distinguish economic migrants from asylum seekers. They obviously have every right to seek sanctuary, but we must also have legislation that does not tie individual nations’ hands regarding who is accepted and who gets asylum. A collective approach such as the one the Commission is proposing might undermine each EU nation’s ability to decide this. Meanwhile, though, I think a major priority should be securing the southern borders. Frontex must play a more prominent part in this regard in order to act as a strong deterrent to economic migrants wishing to make the hazardous trip across the Mediterranean. We must act more strongly against the various third countries that irresponsibly encourage those activities. The Commission says it will be national governments that ultimately decide the number of people they accept, and that Britain and other countries will not be forced to accept large numbers of economic migrants that it cannot cope with or cannot support in these economically challenging times. That is necessary and right. Countries like Britain need guarantees that our asylum and immigration policy remains for us to decide and guarantees also that the EU’s approach will remain one of open cooperation and not one of compulsion.
| null |
Willy Meyer
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
es
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Mr Billström, Commissioner Barrot, the start of this legislative term offers us an excellent opportunity to rethink our immigration policy. We currently have an immigration policy that is based on manifest hypocrisy and cynicism. We say that the European project would be impossible without migrant workers, and yet we are criminalising them with legislation such as the Return Directive, which has been aptly named the ‘Directive of Shame’, and which fails to comply with the principles and values of the European Union. This policy of trying to make Europe into a fortress at this time of crisis, which is a triple crisis in terms of food, finance and energy, is not understood by everyone, because our work is poor and heading in the wrong direction. If Europe is needed and, in particular, if Europe is needed thanks to migrant workers, then we must respect all their rights and not make them into criminals, as the European Union is doing. This is simply bringing more pain to families that are just trying to escape war or hunger. As a result, the best calling card at next spring’s summit of Heads of State or Government in Madrid, between the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean, would be to repeal this ‘Directive of Shame’, which does not comply with our principles and values and which is not understood by any government, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, from where thousands of migrant workers come to the European Union. I therefore call for serious consideration to be given to repealing this ‘Directive of Shame’.
| null |
Gerard Batten
|
MEP
|
ID
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the measures under discussion are part of the existing so-called area of justice, freedom and security, of which immigration is a part. This is about a common immigration and asylum policy and, however much the British Government may lie to the British people, we know that they intend that Britain should eventually be bound by it. But a ‘one-size-fits-all’ immigration policy will not work for Britain. Britain is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, more densely populated, surprisingly, than India, China or Japan. Net immigration to Britain is now running at about 230 000 people per annum, adding over a million new people to the population every five years. The population will rise from its current 61.4 million, an all-time high, to about 70 million plus in 2031, and then spiral ever upwards. All this growth is due to immigration and births to immigrants. The UK Independence Party is not opposed to some immigration, but this should be strictly controlled and for the benefit of Britain and not the European Union or anybody else. Britain does not need a common European immigration policy. What we need to do is end mass immigration now and introduce a strictly limited and controlled immigration policy. We should apply the terms of the 1951 Convention on Refugees, which requires them to seek sanctuary in the first designated safe country they come to – which is not a little island off the coast of Europe called Britain. We should end the promotion of multiculturalism, which is divisive and a recipe for conflict, and assimilate and integrate existing migrants into a common culture with respect for a common set of political and legal institutions. There should be no place in Britain – and, I suggest, anywhere in Europe – for Sharia law.
| null |
Louis Bontes
|
MEP
|
NI
|
en
|
nl
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Frontex is not working. The budget for Poseidon, the operation currently under way, is EUR 11 million. This is pointless. It is money down the drain. Direct returns and a crackdown on the countries that make this immigration possible is the only solution. The common asylum and immigration policy is not in the interests of the Dutch people. The Dutch Party for Freedom, on whose behalf I am speaking, is vehemently opposed to this policy. It will result in even more people with no prospects entering Europe. The Dutch people do not need solidarity, what they need is for us to stand up here for Dutch interests. Let there be an end to it then. I should like to give a further reaction to the Swedish Presidency. This Presidency takes the view that Europe should further open its borders to mass immigration for the sake of its labour market. The Party for Freedom rejects this out of hand. It is a smoke screen to enable mass immigration. Look at what is happening in the big cities – look at the enormous problems they face. Think about your own people, think about your own country, think about your own culture. We shall be doing so, in any case. I should like to add that enough is enough. Let there be an end to mass immigration; it has gone far enough.
| null |
Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
es
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, President-in-Office of the Council, the challenges in terms of migration remain the same, as too does our commitment to overcome them. These challenges are as follows: the first is to move towards a common migration policy; the second is to greatly improve the organisation of legal migration; the third is to improve integration procedures; the fourth is to combat illegal or clandestine immigration with absolute determination; the fifth is to develop Frontex further; the sixth is to improve procedures, conventions and agreements with countries of origin and transit; and the seventh is to make progress with a common asylum policy. The European Asylum Support Office must, in 2010, become a fair, genuine and egalitarian office, which shares out the responsibility in a way that ensures solidarity and which offers international or subsidiary protection going forward. As regards Frontex, it is a matter of coordination and cooperation; under no circumstances is it a replacement for national competences. The need to increase Frontex missions to the south of our borders, in southern Europe, particularly in the Mediterranean and on the Atlantic front, is not just the European Union’s response to the migratory pressure developing in Greece, Malta, Italy or Spain; it is also a humanitarian response to prevent death and avoid drama. Just look at what has happened with the Frontex budget: it has gone from EUR 6 million in 2005 to EUR 78 or 83 million in 2010. However, Mr President, our concern is that Frontex is incapable of managing the budget that Parliament has given it. This would be unacceptable, because there are many challenges and missions to be tackled. It is vital that Frontex breathes life into CRATE, the Centralised Record of Available Technical Equipment. It is also vital that the Member States’ commitment to CRATE becomes effective. We need to have more and better coordination with Europol. We need to manage Iconex and, Mr President, in terms of safeguarding human rights, we need to have more and better coordination between Frontex and the International Organisation for Migration and also the UNHCR. These are the challenges and these are our commitments.
| null |
Claude Moraes
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, no one underestimates the enormous difficulties of creating the balance mentioned by the chair of our committee, and of the migration pressures which face the European Union and the pressures that we face in the Mediterranean. Yet again this summer, we have been reminded of the harsh reality faced by migrants and asylum seekers facing persecution and fleeing poverty. Frontex undoubtedly plays a key role in Europe’s approach to migration. As we build a more coordinated EU system for managing our external borders, the importance of Frontex increases. Therefore, my group believes that it is crucial to get the balance right: the balance between, on the one hand, resourcing Frontex – as many colleagues have mentioned – and, on the other hand, ensuring that Frontex has a stronger appreciation of the humanitarian aspects of its work. For example, how can Frontex help bring down the tragic number of deaths at sea, over 12 000 in the last 10 years? Sea rescue operations have therefore to be included in its remit. The devil is in the detail. Many of these policies need to work on the ground, and I know that Parliament, Commission and Council are trying to do this. We must ensure that Frontex does not simply become a mechanism for keeping people out of Europe. Those who are legitimately in need of protection must be granted access to EU territory. Commissioner, you spoke about the principle of non-refoulement. It is important that you restated it. The situation for Italy and Libya is, of course, something which my colleagues from Italy will speak more about, but this principle must not be violated by anyone or any country. We are in a situation where non-refoulement will happen even with countries which have not signed the 1951 Convention. It is important that we uphold these human rights. We must not shy away from our responsibilities to provide protection to those who need it. Frontex therefore needs to be part of a fair and balanced approach to migration and asylum. We must ensure that the asylum package is implemented, and we must ensure that legal migration and the protection of refugees are held in balance.
| null |
Sarah Ludford
|
MEP
|
ALDE
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, the British press, assisted to such a conclusion by paranoid and Euro-sceptic MEPs, has scaremongered that a future Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, which Mr Barroso has accepted at the proposal of the ALDE Group, will force the UK to accept more asylum seekers from across Europe. This is not true. As Vice-President Barrot has confirmed, the pilot project to assist Malta is voluntary and the proposed scheme to resettle UNHCR-approved refugees directly from outside Europe would also be non-compulsory. No element of EU policy has ever involved quotas or compulsion on national acceptance of migrants. However, what we do try and get is voluntary solidarity, and I do hope that a future Fundamental Rights Commissioner will make a contribution to stopping migrants meeting their death in the Mediterranean. Ten years ago next month, the EU set the goal of a common asylum system and coordinated migration policies. Despite some considerable efforts, especially by the European Commission with the support of MEPs, we are clearly a long way from that. The top priority is to get some proper management of the flows, which are usually what are called ‘mixed flows’ of refugees and job-seeking migrants, so as to distinguish between the two. This is to give confidence to the European public of proper management as well as to stop loss of life and to ensure protection for those qualifying for it. If people in frail boats are pushed back out to sea and never assessed for protection, none of those goals is achieved. I am shocked to hear from Commissioner Barrot that Member States do not apply maritime law uniformly. Such disarray is unacceptable. Frontex must be properly resourced and respect human rights of individuals. Those individuals must be allowed to land and be assessed for asylum status and sorted into refugees and those not qualified to stay. EU Member States must, if necessary, be taken to the European Court of Justice for failing to do so, and the idea, as my colleague Sonia Alfano has said, that Libya is capable of doing that job instead is completely outrageous given its gross human rights abuses. A rational European immigration policy would involve some common framework of criteria for economic migration within which Member States accepting such migrants can operate under their own decisions on the numbers they take. What we need is the coordination, the common standards, the common framework and then the solidarity as well.
| null |
Franziska Keller
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
en
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, I do not really share your enthusiasm about Frontex. We have heard reports from Frontex as well as from Member States that they have violated human rights, the right to non-refoulement and given no possibility for refugees to apply for asylum, and those violations of human rights are done in the name of the European Union. Minister Billström, you have said that we need some checks and balances on our external borders but, I ask you, why cannot we have some checks and balances on those people who are working and defending our external borders? Why cannot we have some transparency and clarity about Frontex and what they are doing? We need clarity and transparency in this House, in the European Parliament, about Frontex’s deeds. We need clarity about what is the stage of the procedure of the new rules of Frontex that you mentioned, Commissioner, and we need some clarification about how refugees can obtain international protection when they are intercepted at sea. We also need transparency about the deals that are being made with third countries and what happens exactly to the EU money that is being put into Libya, for example. I doubt whether what you called Libya’s assistance to refugees is actually helpful to refugees but here again, we are just lacking transparency and if, as you said, not even Member States interpret the rights of migrants the same way as you do, then how are you going to make sure that third countries such as Libya are going to follow your sort of interpretation? I would like to remind you that Parliament has always supported the idea of making the sharing of responsibility to deal with asylum applications obligatory, and I think your report of the pilot project where only France took a very, very small, almost ridiculous, number of 100 refugees from Malta shows that we are not getting far with the voluntary solidarity. We need some obligation here.
| null |
Ryszard Czarnecki
|
MEP
|
ECR
|
en
|
pl
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
We want to fight immigration. It is a great problem. In the meantime, our notice board and computer are going wrong. Let us tackle the things which we can really tackle effectively. Migration is, of course, one of the greatest problems facing Europe today. What is more, it is a problem not just for us politicians, but it is also a problem for the people of the European Union’s Member States. It is, perhaps, one of the main challenges currently facing the political class in Europe, and one of the main problems of our electors. Immigration has more than one name, because my esteemed fellow Members have spoken today about immigration from Africa, which mainly affects the countries of the Mediterranean Basin, and what they said is, in a certain sense, justified. I represent a country – Poland – where this illegal immigration is, of course, smaller, but people come to us from the countries of the former Soviet Union, and some from Asia. We are faced with a question about the philosophy of the EU’s fight against illegal immigration, and – let us put it simply – also against restrictions on legal immigration. Does Frontex have to bear the brunt of this fight? Is this really advisable? Would it not be more effective for the extra money which we want to give Frontex to be allocated to the countries which have the greatest problem with illegal immigration, and also to EU Member States whose borders are part of the EU’s external borders? Mr President, it seems to me, as I finish, that this would be more advisable.
| null |
Rui Tavares
|
MEP
|
GUE/NGL
|
en
|
pt
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr Billström, Mr Barrot, we have no choice regarding the Geneva Convention and human rights. Our only option is to comply with the conventions that we have signed. The law is clear: sending refugees who arrive on European shores to countries that have not signed the Geneva Convention on refugees is a violation of the Geneva Convention. This is not an abstract point of law; it is a real argument. When, through Frontex or the Member States, we send refugees to Libya, we are in breach of the convention, not least because we know from the Italian Government’s own figures that 75% of the people who reach European shores apply for asylum, and 50% of those – about 38%, or a third of the total – are entitled to humanitarian protection. Political choices lead to moral choices, and right now we are faced with a moral choice. Is it right, is it really moral, that more than 14 000 people have died trying to reach the coast of Europe in recent years? Is it really moral that a large proportion of those people who risk their lives should be entitled to asylum in the first place? Is it really necessary that they should have to risk their lives? No, they should not have to do so. We have been saying for a long time that a purely repressive immigration policy, such as the one that has been followed, presents us with these life or death choices for people’s lives and makes us all jointly responsible for each life or death choice. It is not by throwing money at Frontex now, at the beginning of its mandate – money that Frontex cannot spend and that the Commission says it is inadvisable to give to Frontex at this time – it is not by doing this that we will solve the problem. The way in which we can solve the problem is by re-examining Frontex’s mandate, and then Frontex might need more money. For that to happen, Frontex would have to cooperate and provide the UNHCR with full information; for that to happen, Frontex would have to include humanitarian concerns in its policies, which it does not do at the moment. Just as serious, ladies and gentlemen, is the proposal regarding refugee funds: while we are investing more in Frontex, these funds are being cut back.
| null |
Roberta Angelilli
|
MEP
|
PPE
|
en
|
it
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, frankly I am annoyed that certain Italian fellow Members have not wasted the opportunity to reopen the same old controversy, with the sole aim of attacking the Italian Government. When it comes to immigration, we should no longer engage in ideological manipulation, but go to the heart of the guidelines set out by the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which is based on the values of integration and solidarity. I genuinely appreciate the Commission’s efforts in recent years, but Commissioner Barrot will agree with me when I say that we need to speed things up to create a true European strategy on immigration, which prioritises the uncompromising fight against illegal immigration and the trafficking and exploitation of human beings. We must take firm action against all those who profit from this trafficking, including employers who use illegal labour. Certainly, it is no longer acceptable to allow immigration to be a problem shouldered only by the border countries of the Mediterranean basin. The Commission’s recent proposal for a joint reintegration programme is a step forward in terms of political and practical cooperation between Member States, but we urgently need to implement a series of initiatives to develop more effective intra-Community solidarity. That is why we are waiting for the announcement made by the President-in-Office of the European Union to become reality soon, an announcement echoing, among other things, a heartfelt plea by the Italian Minister, Franco Frattini, to launch a debate so that we can find a way to share fairly among Member States the burdens and responsibilities associated with the flows of illegal immigrants and political asylum seekers. This is the key point, in my view, because otherwise we end up in the paradoxical situation whereby some Member States, including Italy, Malta, Greece and Spain, are obliged to receive illegal immigrants, whereas others hide behind the discretional concept of solidarity on a voluntary basis. They cannot hide from this any longer. I would like to thank France which has offered to accept 100 people, 100 asylum seekers: 100 people, but that is out of the thousands, tens of thousands of asylum seekers. I therefore thank France, but it is a drop in the ocean. I will conclude by saying that, among other things, we can no longer view immigration as a panacea. In the absence of a serious cooperation policy for development, where Europe must take a leading role, we will be condemning part of the world to a certain and inevitable future of poverty and despair.
| null |
Stavros Lambrinidis
|
MEP
|
S&D
|
en
|
el
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Minister, Commissioner, Parliament has urgently called for cooperation at European level with immigrants' countries of origin and transit. These countries do not only include Libya. They also include Turkey. Apart from being a country of origin and transit within this framework, Turkey is also a candidate country. In other words, one could say that it has a dual obligation to respect the political principles and the institutions of the European Union. In at least four cases recently, Frontex helicopters were jammed by Turkish radar in Greek airspace while performing their duties. In fact, yesterday, a Turkish fighter plane threatened to force a Frontex helicopter to turn back. What do you intend to do and how will you react on behalf of the European Union to this harassment during action by a European institution such as Frontex? Also, compulsory solidarity cannot only take the form of Frontex-type policing measures in the southern states. There must also be solidarity in terms of accepting immigrants arriving in our countries, which cannot sustain such large numbers every time. Here, the Commission and Council are promoting voluntary solidarity, which is not worth the paper it is written on. Can you tell us why you are not introducing compulsory solidarity here too? Finally, the pilot programme between Italy, Malta and Libya should not be the only pilot programme. Why is there no pilot programme for turning immigrants back in Turkey, which is a gaping wound in terms of this particular problem? Has the Greek Government ever asked for this, Commissioner, and you refused it? Or did Libya, Italy and Malta simply come along and you accepted them without making any other requests?
| null |
Hélène Flautre
|
MEP
|
Greens/EFA
|
en
|
fr
| 2009-09-15T00:00:00
|
2009
|
Immigration, the role of Frontex and cooperation among Member States (debate) Video of the speechesPV
|
Mr President, this gives me an opportunity to clarify two small points which, I believe – and as one of my fellow Members said just now – highlight the hypocritical nature of our policy. The first point concerns the Dublin agreements. Commissioner, you know the situation in Calais well; you know that, in Calais, many people could easily apply for and obtain political refugee status. Why do they not do so? Because, as a result of the Dublin agreements, they are guaranteed to be sent to countries to which they do not want to go, and sometimes for excellent reasons. They do not want to go to Greece, where they have practically no chance of receiving refugee status. Today, the Dublin agreements are an instrument that is hostile to the protection of those people who need them most and which create inequality among the Member States. So let us stop talking about solidarity, when instruments are put in place that create inequality among the States. The second point concerns the readmission agreements. I fully understand, the aim is to negotiate these agreements with Turkey and with Libya, that is, to toy with the idea of having one huge environment of countries that are our neighbours and huge camps for holding the migratory flows. This is unacceptable for practical reasons, for moral reasons and for political reasons, and you know it, Mr Barrot!
| null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.