Teljes szöveg 
Az ülések szó szerinti jegyzőkönyve
2011. május 10., Kedd - Strasbourg Lektorált változat

15. Migrációs áramlások és menekültügyek, valamint hatásuk Schengenre (vita)
A felszólalásokról készült videofelvételek

  Przewodniczący. − Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego są oświadczenia Rady i Komisji dotyczące przepływów migracyjnych i azylu oraz ich wpływu na Schengen (2011/2689(RSP)).


  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, the developments in the Southern Neighbourhood and the ensuing migration flows are posing a serious challenge for the European Union. They have served to underscore the importance of looking at the whole issue of how we manage migration and refugee flows.

Therefore the European Council in March called upon the Council and the Commission to submit before the June European Council a plan for the development of capacities to manage migration and refugee flows as a response. The conclusions adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 11 and 12 April 2011 and the communication issued by the Commission last week are important steps in this direction. The Presidency has convened an extraordinary meeting of the Council on Justice and Home Affairs for 12 May in order to discuss the issue of the management of migration and refugee flows. These discussions will help to prepare for the meeting of the European Council on 21 June which will address the same issues.

We cannot of course stand idle in the face of events on the other side of the Mediterranean. The EU and the Member States are ready to assist both those displaced as a result of the latest developments in North Africa and those Member States most directly concerned. Over the past few months the EU and the Member States have made available approximately EUR 96 million of emergency humanitarian aid and we are committed to continue to provide further support as and when the situation requires.

The Council has also invited all Member States to continue their support for UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration, the Red Cross and all relevant actors, the efforts of which are paramount in helping those displaced as a consequence of protracted violence in Libya. Those Member States more directly affected by these developments are receiving contributions of funding, equipment and technical expertise; for example the Commission announced earlier that approximately EUR 25 million from emergency funds could be made available for Member States such as Italy and Malta. Furthermore, the newly-created European Asylum Support Office, although still in the process of becoming fully operational, is also available to help. Some Member States, including Hungary, have already said that they are ready to reallocate refugees from Malta in order to alleviate pressure on the authorities there.

Apart from the specific measures intended to address this particular situation, the Council remains fully committed to the further development of the common European asylum system. Work is under way in the Council and Parliament and some progress has been already achieved, despite the technical difficulty and the politically sensitive nature of this subject.

In general the management of migratory flows in the EU and in individual Member States requires the effective management of borders. As far as the management of external borders is concerned, Frontex has an important role to play in a number of ways, including the monitoring of the EU’s external borders and providing operational support.

In the light of the latest developments in North Africa, joint operation Hermes was launched on 20 February 2011 following a request from the Italian Government. This is aimed at preventing and detecting illegal border crossings to Lampedusa, Sicily, Sardinia and the Italian mainland. Frontex is also supporting the Italian authorities in second-line border control activities by the briefing and screening of migrants.

The Council also welcomes the Commission’s decision to mobilise supplementary funds needed by Frontex to continue its planned joint operations. We have urged Member States to provide further human and technical resources as required in support of the agency’s operations, including Hermes.

As you know, the new proposal concerning Frontex is in this House and we have been negotiating it. I very much count on the support of Parliament in bringing this legislative proposal to a conclusion and ensuring the success of the negotiations.

Against the background of the recent migratory pressure from North Africa, the strengthening of Frontex has become a high priority for the Council. I would like to express my thanks to Mr Busuttil and the shadow rapporteurs for their good cooperation and I very much hope, as I have just emphasised, that a first-reading agreement can be achieved by June 2011, as was called for by the European Council in March.

Developments in the southern Mediterranean, in particular in relation to the Tunisian migrants arriving in Lampedusa, have also raised questions about controls at internal borders. This in turn touches on the issue of freedom of movement within the European Union. The Council fully agrees with the view held by almost everyone here that the free movement of persons within the Schengen area is a major achievement. Those Member States that have asked for the revision of the Schengen system have also underlined that they were proposing this with the intention of preserving the free movement of our citizens, which is one of the cornerstones of the Union.

Improving the security and governance of the Schengen area in a time of increased pressure is a means to this end. That said, in the light of the increased pressure on some external borders and the calls from Member States to strengthen the system of the Schengen rules, the Council needs to look into how we can further guarantee the principle of free movement and, at the same time, citizens’ need for maintenance of a high level of internal security.

At the Council meeting on 12 May 2011 the Presidency plans to initiate discussions on the various ideas on the Schengen acquis which have been put forward by the Commission in its communication on migration of 4 May. The Council looks forward in particular to examining the Commission’s suggestions for a mechanism concerning the coordinated and temporary reintroduction of controls as a measure of last resort, based on objective criteria and respecting the Community method. The Council will also have a chance to discuss how to continue work on the revision of the Schengen evaluation mechanism to ensure more efficient and uniform implementation of the aquis.

Of course our immediate priority is to deal with the effects of the dramatic events in the southern Mediterranean, but we also have to draw lessons for the future. In short we need to put in place a strategy for the longer term. Some of the issues which I have set out will help in creating such a strategy, but I look forward to discussions which can lead to a comprehensive approach to migration, fully in line with our global approach to migration.

Along these lines Prime Minister Orbán has recently said that we should clearly differentiate between economic migrants and political refugees. Europe must welcome the latter if she wants to be true to herself. Europe must help, through means similar to a Marshall Plan, the countries of North Africa so as to create liveable conditions there, thus tackling the root causes of migration. That will require not only agreement amongst ourselves, but also consultations with our neighbours and in particular in partnership with the countries of Northern Africa, and it will need to take into account a wide range of factors such as international protection, migration, mobility and security.

To conclude, from a wider perspective, our southern neighbours will be assisted by all available means in their transition to open, democratic and prosperous societies. This is the best possible way of addressing the push factors driving irregular immigrants towards our shores.


  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, today we are here to debate migration and cross-border movement of European citizens, but let me start by reminding all of us that yesterday was the 61st anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, which laid the foundations of the European Union, and from that day began a process in which European people have been willing to come together and put aside their differences, to build a European continent without borders, where our citizens can move freely between countries.

For regions like the one where we are now, here in Strasbourg and in Alsace generally, living on a frontier no longer equates with being restricted by borders, and the benefits extend far beyond these border regions. For the vast majority of European citizens, the right to move freely is the embodiment of the European project and one of the most tangible results of the European Union, and I am pleased to say that most Europeans use their right to the full – people make around 1.25 billion journeys as tourists within the European Union countries every year.

That would be completely impossible without the European Union. I still remember when we had to overcome many difficulties in order to travel from my country, Portugal, to Spain. So it is indeed a great mark of the progress of civilisation that countries are able to lower barriers at their borders and let citizens move freely.

Moreover, in terms of the economy too, free movement is central to the success of the single market and Europe’s continued efforts to boost growth and jobs. To put it plainly, free movement is to Europe what foundations are to buildings. Remove it and the whole structure is undermined.

Last week the Commission presented a communication on a more structured approach to migration, referring, inter alia, to a proposal on a reinforced Schengen governance system. Other proposals will follow in the coming weeks, and here I want to praise the work of Commissioner Malmström who, with great intelligence and sensitivity, is doing her best to find the right approach to this complex matter.

Let me concentrate on the governance of Schengen because I understand that this is the most important concern here in Parliament. Of course there are many other proposals, on the reinforcement of Frontex and on a common European asylum system, for example, but I hope we will have other occasions to discuss such issues in greater depth.

Last year the Commission put forward proposals to preserve and strengthen the Schengen evaluation mechanism as a central element in the acquis of our common project, and I want to emphasise that last year – i.e. well before the recent developments – the Commission had already identified some problems in the governance of Schengen. We will now update and complete these proposals and we will do all we can to achieve swift results.

The current migration situation in the Mediterranean and the resulting pressures have highlighted some weaknesses and uncoordinated reactions by Member States in the management of Schengen. In the wake of these exceptional circumstances, we urgently need to reinforce the governance of Schengen and of the external borders. We need better coordination between the Commission and Member States and, above all, between Member States themselves.

While recent events have provided a spark of urgency in bringing this matter to the table, the Commission is taking this opportunity, through the communication, to address the long-standing underlying inconsistencies and unresolved issues that have provided scope for some Member States to act unilaterally and not necessarily with a European Union perspective. It is time to nip this tendency in the bud: to stop it ab ovo.

The Commission has already taken short-term measures to deal with the situation in the Mediterranean. In addition, the package we put forward last week urges rational reflection, taking into account short-term needs for strengthened external borders as well as a broader approach to asylum and migration. These issues must also be considered in the light of our neighbourhood policy, trade with North Africa and support for democratisation, as well as Europe’s own long-term labour shortages and efforts to boost European competitiveness.

This is not a knee-jerk reaction. This is not improvisation. This is and must be a broad range of measures built on the foundations of a strong and successful European policy, defining the best interests of the European Union and its citizens now and into the future.

At the same time, the aim is to give relief to those Member States who are trying to cope with an unfair share of the migration burden. When thousands of people arrive on the shores of one country, it is not because they dream of living in Malta or Lampedusa; it is because they are seeking a better life in Europe. Countries that are more directly exposed to massive migrant inflows cannot be expected to deal with them alone. The rules on free movement of citizens benefit all countries in the European Union. It is the duty of all countries to support those countries that come under particular pressure at one time or another. This means that burdens have to be shared equitably. It also means that all Member States need to take their responsibilities seriously.

When looking at burden sharing, all the pressures and all the contributions need to be taken into account, and this is the very spirit of the European Union: the management of crisis by solidarity and responsibility. Solidarity and responsibility are the key words in our response. Immigration is a European challenge. Immigration requires a European response.

That is why the Commission’s proposal aims to take Union governance of the Schengen system a step further, showing that there can be solidarity between Member States. This is about common governance, not unilateral moves. I emphasise once again that this is part of an overall approach. The strengthening of Frontex and the move to a common European asylum system are also aspects of such an approach.

Allow me to make one point crystal clear: this is not about finding ways for Member States to reintroduce border controls. I firmly believe that to do so would not only catastrophically undermine what Europe has constructed over the past 61 years, but also sabotage the viability of our efforts to build a prosperous and integrated Europe for the future.

Moreover, Member States already have the right to exercise this option unilaterally under the existing Schengen system. That right has been exercised in the past to help Member States cope with specific short-term exceptional circumstances, for example in the wake of terrorist attacks or in relation to the movement of drugs.

These exceptions should remain exceptions, for I cannot emphasise strongly enough that reintroducing border controls is not a desirable development for Europe, neither in the current circumstances nor in relation to the future challenges that we will face sooner or later. They should be an absolute last resort.

Moreover, we all know that internal controls can be sporadically useful but they are not part of a constructive approach to European integration, nor do they represent a cost-efficient long-term solution to monitoring movement and coping with immigration pressure. This has always been the case. The fact is that when faced with a massive arrival of migrants no Member State will ultimately be in a better position if it tries to deal with them alone. Only if Member States face the situation together, can a lasting solution be found.

The proposals we put forward one year ago to strengthen Schengen, through an evaluation mechanism and intensified coordination of border surveillance, will help create a sense of Union-wide discipline and shared guidance in the system. They will ensure that, in the future, countries will not feel pressured to take decisions alone that affect all Schengen signatories.

This is not, I emphasise, a new policy that undermines the Union. It is a chance to strengthen it – a step forward for joint European governance, not a step back. It is the intention to reinforce the Schengen acquis, not to depart from the Schengen acquis. We cannot be blind to the fact that recent events have revealed a problem in Schengen governance which we have to solve. If we do not reinforce existing mechanisms, Member States will continue to act alone. They will, in fact, be encouraged to act alone. We will be giving arguments to the populists, the extremists and, in some cases, the xenophobes who want to call into question the great acquis communautaire in this area. This is why we think the best way to avoid putting Schengen at risk is precisely to reinforce the rules of governance of Schengen and clarify some of its aspects.

This is not, I insist, about caving in to pressure from any part of Europe. By enhancing our capacity to deal with crisis situations, it will put a more robust governance system in place that will equip decision-makers with better tools to resist populist or extremist pressure in the future.

It is not a proposal intended simply to deal with short-term events, but there can only be real confidence in long-term solutions if we show that we can effectively address the short-term issues as well. It is not about turning back time: it is about getting the governance right today for the challenges Europe will surely face tomorrow. It is not about abandoning citizens’ rights of free movement. It is about valuing their integrity by strengthening the rules.

I am confident that this House will support our approach and our efforts. We are united in our determination to uphold the principles on which our Union is founded, against any populist temptation. We know that it is now fashionable in some quarters to be extremist or populist, or indeed sometimes to wave the flags of xenophobia. This is not what we are going to do. We will resist all these kinds of pressure, but to succeed in this we need to give citizens the confidence that we stand firm on two things: first on correcting the shortcomings of the existing system so that effective relief can be brought to situations of pressure and crisis; and, second, on ensuring, on this basis, full respect for human rights and the humanitarian principles on which our Union is founded. The people are ready to exercise solidarity, internally and externally, if they are confident that their security concerns are addressed decisively and comprehensively.

I count on the support of this House in calling on the Member States to take the necessary decisions quickly. Our proposals are on the table. Now is not a time to wait: it is a time to act, so that an open European Union comes out of this challenge, united and stronger.


  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Ratspräsidentin, Herr Kommissionspräsident! Es wurde bereits unterstrichen: Schengen ist eine der großen Errungenschaften unseres gemeinsamen europäischen Projekts. Die Bürger spüren das tagtäglich, wenn sie in Europa unterwegs sind. Es ist die Verwirklichung des Traums Europa, ein Europa ohne Grenzkontrollen. Deswegen muss zunächst einmal in dieser Debatte – auch aufgrund der Debattenlage der letzten Wochen – klargestellt werden, dass wir in diesem Haus gemeinsam dafür sorgen werden, dass dieses Prinzip, diese Idee, die dahintersteht, durch keine Initiative und durch keine Debatte beschädigt wird. Wir werden dieses Prinzip im Europäischen Parlament verteidigen!

In den letzten Wochen wurde über 25 000 Flüchtlinge aus Tunesien diskutiert, die in Lampedusa in Italien gelandet sind. Über Jahre hinweg hat ein Land wie Schweden mehr als 25 000 Menschen aufgenommen, jährlich! Wir hatten Staaten, die proportional zur Einwohnerzahl deutlich größere Zahlen aufgenommen haben, als das jetzt an der Südgrenze Europas der Fall war, und trotzdem ist niemand auf die Idee gekommen, aufgrund dieser Belastungssituation Schengen in Frage zu stellen. Deswegen möchte ich schon eindeutig zum Ausdruck bringen: Es ist schade, dass wir aufgrund dieser Herausforderung, die wir gemeinsam zu tragen haben, in Europa leider Gottes ernsthaft eine Debatte über den Schengenstatus führen müssen.

Zum Zweiten möchte ich zum Ausdruck bringen, dass wir Solidarität praktizieren. Wenn es um Staaten wie Malta geht, dieses kleine Land, das massiv betroffen ist und kein Hinterland hat, dann wird heute Solidarität praktiziert. Ich möchte aber neben der Solidarität auch unterstreichen, dass das zweite Grundprinzip die Eigenverantwortung der Staaten ist. Da muss ich auch die Kommission bitten, genauer hinzuschauen. Wenn heute Gerichte in der Europäischen Union urteilen, dass Dublin II außer Kraft gesetzt wird, also Flüchtlinge nicht in die Erstankunftsstaaten rückgeführt werden, dann muss man an die Kommission schon die Frage richten, wie engagiert man gegen die Staaten vorgeht, die das heute bestehende Recht offensichtlich nicht umsetzen, wenn es um Mindeststandards in der Europäischen Union geht. Deswegen bitte ich die Kommission, dort auch aktiv zu werden.

Wenn es jetzt um die Vorbereitung des Rates geht, möchte ich nur drei Punkte ansprechen. Erstens: Bei der Migration müssen wir natürlich langfristig im Sinne der demografischen Entwicklung auf mehr Zuwanderung setzen, aber wir haben heute in der Europäischen Union 24 Millionen Menschen, die keine Arbeit haben, in Spanien eine Jugendarbeitslosigkeit von 30 %. Deswegen müssen wir mit der Zuwanderungsfrage auch sorgsam umgehen, sehr sorgsam. Das Zweite ist die Stärkung von Frontex, das wurde bereits zum Ausdruck gebracht.

Drittens: Ich bitte uns alle, dafür zu sorgen, dass die Staaten, die jetzt vor der Tür von Schengen stehen, nämlich Bulgarien und Rumänien, jetzt nicht auf der Grundlage der aktuellen Debatte ins Hintertreffen geraten. Sie haben sich bemüht, sie haben sich angestrengt. Wir wollen keine schlechteren Standards für den Beitritt, aber wenn sie die Standards erfüllen, dann sollen Bulgarien und Rumänien auch fairerweise das Recht haben, Mitglied im Schengenraum zu werden.


  Martin Schulz, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich teile nicht die Auffassung, dass die Mitteilung der Kommission gut ist. Es tut mir aufrichtig leid, das finde ich nicht. Ich glaube, dass sie übertrieben ist und dass sie fehl am Platz ist.

Wir haben es nicht mit einer Krise in der Europäischen Union zu tun. Wenn 400 000 Menschen von Libyen nach Tunesien reisen, ist das eine Krise für Tunesien. Wenn 20 000 über das Mittelmeer nach Europa kommen, ist das keine Krise für Europa.


Wenn wir eine vernünftige Lastenteilung in Europa hätten, wäre es überhaupt kein Problem. Und Sie haben die Zahlen genannt, Herr Kollege Weber. Kein Mensch hat sich über diese Zahlen in diesen Größenordnungen aufgeregt.

Ich bin deshalb nicht der Meinung, dass Sie etwas Gutes vorgelegt haben, Frau Malmström, weil Sie Artikel 78 Absatz 3 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union nicht zitiert haben. Ich weiß nicht, ob er Ihnen bekannt ist. Artikel 78 Absatz 3 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union lautet: Wenn ein oder mehrere Mitgliedstaaten mit einem kurzfristigen Ansturm von Drittstaatsbürgern konfrontiert sind, können sie vorübergehende Maßnahmen ergreifen, übrigens auf Vorschlag der Kommission mit Beschluss des Rates nach Anhörung des Parlaments. Das ist Artikel 78 Absatz 3 des gültigen Vertrags!

Wir haben übrigens auf der Grundlage des Schengen-Regimes von 2006 bei der Fußball-Europameisterschaft oder bei der Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft zur Abwehr von Hooliganism vorübergehende Grenzkontrollen eingeführt. Es gibt überhaupt keine Notwendigkeit, dem populistischen Ansatz zweier Regierungschefs, die in ihren Ländern mit dem Rücken an der Wand stehen und in populistischer Manier einen Ausweg gesucht haben, dadurch auch noch Unterstützung zu geben, dass wir eine solche Mitteilung vorlegen.


Was ist denn da abgelaufen, Herr Kommissionspräsident? Da sagt ein Lega-Nord-Innenminister in Italien: Die Tunesier sprechen alle Französisch. Das ist gut, da kriegen sie Schengen-Aufenthaltsgenehmigungen von uns und dann können sie schnell alle nach Frankreich. Der französische Staatspräsident sagt natürlich: Ihr habt sie wohl nicht mehr alle. Alle Tunesier, die nach Italien kommen, wollen jetzt nach Frankreich? Ihr wollt uns die hier zuschieben? Nein, da machen wir die Grenze dicht! Dann stellen sich Premierminister Berlusconi und der französische Staatspräsident gemeinsam hin und sagen: Wir brauchen aufgrund der von uns selbst produzierten Situation jetzt wieder Grenzkontrollen. Und was macht die Kommission? Die legt eine Mitteilung vor, anstatt zu sagen: Liebe Leute, das ist der absolut falsche Weg. So kann man eine Grundfreiheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in Europa nicht außer Kraft setzen! Das hätte ich von Ihnen erwartet!


Der europäische Geist geht uns verloren. Wie kann es eigentlich sein, dass in dieser Union, in der eine der größten Errungenschaften unter den Grundfreiheiten die Freizügigkeit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger ist, aufgrund eines marginalen Problems, das man sehr wohl managen kann, plötzlich zwei Regierungschefs hingehen können und eine der wirklich großen Errungenschaften – das war ein richtig guter Satz in Ihrer Rede – einfach mutwillig außer Kraft setzen? Wie kann das möglich sein? Für den Sieg dieser Leute genügt es, dass wir nicht genug dagegen kämpfen! Deshalb hätte ich mir gewünscht, Sie hätten gekämpft.

(Der Präsident unterbricht den Redner.)

Ich will Ihnen nur einen Satz sagen: Ich lebe an einer Grenze, und zwar an der deutsch-niederländisch-belgischen Grenze zwischen Aachen, Maastricht und Lüttich. Wenn Sie mir erklären können, Frau Malmström, wie das Migrationsproblem im Mittelmeer dadurch bewältigt wird, dass ich demnächst, wenn ich von Aachen nach Maastricht fahre, wieder meinen Ausweis zeigen muss, wenn Sie mir das bitte erklären könnten, dann wäre ich Ihnen sehr dankbar!


  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, let us be very open and blunt about this: what we have seen in recent weeks on this issue has been shameful – Italy issuing temporary residence permits to refugees from Tunisia, then France reacting by reintroducing internal border checks, as if the European Union had suddenly ceased to exist.

Let us be very open and call this by its name: it was a ping-pong game by two governments, and by Berlusconi and Sarkozy, on the back of refugees who are, in fact, in trouble. That is what has been happening and, in my opinion, it has been disastrous not only for Schengen but also for the European Union and its image because the reintroduction of internal border checks contradicts the whole essence of the Union and the basic principles of the Treaty. That point has been made several times here and Mr Barroso has also made it.

Moreover, what occurred was absolutely out of proportion. I would not go so far as to echo Mr Schulz in calling this a marginal problem – 27 000 Tunisians do not constitute a marginal problem – but he is right to say that, by comparison with, for example, the 350 000 people who fled from Kosovo during the Kosovo war, we are clearly not talking about a migration tsunami.

And so we come to the problem: the communication from the Commission. In my opinion, it was not very clear. The communication states that, as a last resort in truly critical situations, a mechanism may need to be introduced – and, as I read it, that means a new mechanism – allowing for a coordinated and temporary reintroduction of controls.

That is the problem with the whole communication because, if this means that the Commission is proposing an additional possibility for the reintroduction of border controls, not provided for in the existing Schengen acquis, I can tell you that our Group will fight such a proposal with all available means, and I hope the entire Parliament will do likewise.

If, on the contrary, the sentence in question means that the Commission wants to restrict the current provision, then that has been foreseen: national security and public order are the two elements covered by the existing Schengen acquis.

If the intended meaning is that the Commission wants to restrict the current provision allowing Member States to reintroduce border controls, then, Mr Barroso, you can have 100% support from our Group.

So, what I am asking of Ms Malmström and Mr Barroso is a rewriting of the communication and specifically of the sentence which states that a new mechanism shall be introduced for the reintroduction of border checks. All they need to do is to state that they will strengthen the existing provision in the Schengen acquis.


  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, my Group and I welcome this opportunity to debate the issues and problems which Europe faces in the area of migration and the Schengen system. The debate is long overdue. Now is the time to focus not only on providing free movement, but also on better guarding the borders of Member States and the EU itself. Rather than pushing for more legislation in the area of immigration and migration, we should be making the legislation that we already have work better and harder for all the citizens of the Union. However, current concerns from Member States are not reactionary, but instead the inevitable consequence of over 20 years of ever-changing circumstances in Europe and around the world.

There is no doubt that Schengen has been a success in many ways, but Europe is facing challenges which simply did not exist to the current extent when the system was first created. Large-scale unemployment, migration from North Africa, terrorism, organised crime and people-trafficking have provided us with problems far more complex than those envisaged in the policies for free movement of European citizens. It is not an unfair assessment to say that the current system is now shown to be flawed and ill-equipped for the new circumstances we find ourselves in. We need to create an effective tool representative of the modern needs of Europe’s Member States and able to improve the situation for all.

This needs to be complemented by renewed strength in making sure the other agencies of the EU, like Frontex, are there to support states in securing their own EU external borders, and that the problems are not exacerbated by further countries which may join the EU and therefore the Schengen area that are both ill-prepared to face the challenges and also to assume the burdens that accompany the obvious benefits.

This is a problem best solved through communication and cooperation, but Europe’s immigration and Schengen policies urgently require review, reflection and then sensible reform.


  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame, Monsieur les Commissaires, chers collègues, il y a une chose que je ne comprends pas. On nous dit qu'il y a 25 000 Tunisiens qui viennent en Europe et on nous parle d'insécurité! Quelle insécurité? Il est vrai qu'il y a eu des événements quand même incroyables en Tunisie et en Égypte, et en Libye, il y a une guerre. Je vous rappelle que quand il y a eu la guerre de Bosnie, on a émis des permis temporaires tant qu'il y avait la guerre. L'Allemagne en a pris plusieurs centaines de milliers. Cela a existé et l'Allemagne existe toujours. Elle n'a pas encore coulé. Toute cette histoire de navire qui coule, c'est de la propagande.

Et on nous parle maintenant de criminels, de mafia! Comme si les criminels et la mafia arrivaient à Lampedusa! Ils n'ont pas besoin de Lampedusa, les criminels. Ils rentrent normalement, vous ne les voyez pas et ils sont dans notre pays. Donc arrêtez de nous raconter des histoires.

Le problème est simple. Aujourd'hui, en Afrique du Nord, des gens se réfugient. Eh bien, qu'il y ait un partage solidaire en Europe. 25 000 sur 400 millions, vous n'allez pas me dire que c'est un grand problème! Et moi, je vous dis une chose. Cela me touche parce que combien de Juifs avons-nous refusés? Les Anglais, les Américains, tous les pays, quand ils partaient, parce qu'on disait qu'il y avait trop de Juifs. Ça, c'était en 39-40. C'est l'Europe qui était comme cela. L'Angleterre était comme cela, à refuser des Juifs. Les États-Unis en ont refusés. Le bateau s'appelait le Saint-Louis. J'en ai assez qu'à chaque fois que des gens sont en difficulté, ils sont considérés comme étant le problème. Le problème, ce n'est pas eux, c'est nous, c'est notre incapacité d'être solidaires. C'est notre incapacité de nous ouvrir.


Messieurs les Commissaires, Madame la Présidente du Conseil, savez-vous ce qui s'est passé à Paris? À Paris, des jeunes Tunisiens qui avaient un permis italien ont entendu la police française leur dire: "Vous savez ce qu'on en fait de votre permis?" avant de le déchirer devant eux. Ça, c'est le droit européen aujourd'hui. Une police nationale qui, à des gens qui ont un permis émis par l'Italie, dit: "M. Sarkozy a décidé que ça ne comptait pas". Si c'est ça le droit en Europe, je dis qu'on s'est trompé et c'est pour cela que je vous demande, ici, d'arrêter de nous dire que les problèmes en Afrique du Nord constituent un problème de sécurité. Le problème en Afrique du Nord, le problème de la guerre en Libye posent le problème de l'insécurité des gens qui vivent là-bas.

Donc, répartissons les réfugiés, donnons-leur le pouvoir avec un permis temporaire le temps que les choses puissent se calmer, un permis temporaire réparti dans toute l'Europe. Je crois qu'aujourd'hui, en acceptant ce débat sur Schengen, en acceptant les pressions populistes, en acceptant le racisme, le contrôle aux frontières, si on le fait, sera un contrôle facial. Non, Monsieur Schulz, personne ne vous a arrêté! Non, Monsieur Verhofstadt, personne ne vous a arrêté! Moi non plus! Mais tous ceux qui seront bronzés, qui seront différents, eux se feront contrôler. Et on va faire une Europe à la carte. Les Blancs rentrent, les bronzés ne rentrent pas! Eh bien, c'est contre cette Europe que nous voulons nous battre.



  Rui Tavares, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Há exactamente um ano votámos neste Parlamento a nossa parte da co-decisão para reinstalação de refugiados e, nessa co-decisão, tínhamos um mecanismo de emergência a ser utilizado no caso de refugiados que se encontrassem sob ataque armado ou que fossem vítimas de catástrofes naturais.

Um ano depois, essa co-decisão não foi terminada pelo Conselho, e o meu trabalho de relator de reinstalação de refugiados tornou-se um trabalho de conseguir apoio para esta co-decisão. Tivemos 600 votos a favor para ser um trabalho, primeiro frustrante, deprimente, e agora de desespero.

O meu trabalho de relator de reinstalação de refugiados não pode ser vir o mês passado dizer que morreram 150 às costas de Lampedusa e agora haver notícias de 600 desaparecidos e de mais de 60 mortos às vistas dos barcos da NATO e da marinha europeia. O meu trabalho não pode ser esse.

O Conselho tem de terminar esta co-decisão, porque há muita coisa a fazer para reinstalar refugiados. Desde logo, nós podemos pedir à Sra. Ashton que diga que é preciso abrir um corredor humanitário para trazer 8 000 que estão ainda em Trípoli. Têm bilhete de identidade do ACNUR, são 8 000, não são muitos.

É preciso dizer à NATO para aplicar a resolução de 1973, que diz: proteger civis. Isso quer dizer a mesma coisa em Benghazi, em Misurata e no Mediterrâneo. Quer dizer salvar náufragos.

E, em relação a Schengen, eu quero dizer uma coisa. A resposta às suspensões ad hoc de Schengen, às suspensões unilaterais de Schengen, não pode ser nunca uma suspensão sistémica comunitária de Schengen. Isso não é matar a ideia ab ovo. Isso é pegar na ideia e aplicá-la, generalizando-a. Não pode ser. Tem que ser, por um lado, aplicar recursos na reinstalação de refugiados. Sabe quanto dinheiro fizeram os Estados-Membros da União Europeia só em vendas de armas em 2009 à Líbia? 343 milhões. Sabe quanto é que temos no Fundo Europeu dos Refugiados? 100 milhões. Se nós tivéssemos no Fundo Europeu dos Refugiados o mesmo que só num ano ganhámos com a venda de armas estaríamos muito contentes.

E a Hungria, que foi o primeiro país do mundo a ser objecto de uma acção coordenada para reinstalação dos seus refugiados em 1956, tem responsabilidades muito particulares, responsabilidades históricas para agir também nesta crise de refugiados. Não nos podemos queixar de falta de fundos nesta matéria.


  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, yesterday indeed was Europe Day and in the courtyard here we had armed soldiers, we had the Luftwaffe band and imperial eagles, we had the flag being paraded, being raised, the European anthem; it was the display of militarism and EU nationalism.

I thought and hoped it was all just a bad dream, but today we have got you, Mr Barroso. You begin of course by reiterating the fact that the free movement of peoples is the embodiment of the European project. You then go on to say that it is the duty of Member States to share the burdens of migratory flows into Europe. You advocate a common EU immigration policy, but of course you know that you are losing because the row that has blown up between Italy and France shows that when there is a crisis, between the theory of European integration and the practicality of nation state, it is the nation state that wins.

So you are worried that you are losing and, in your defence of your position, in your defence of your beloved acquis communautaire, your body of law, you resort to intolerance, you resort to nationalism, you make me realise that what I saw yesterday was actually for real.

You attack those who want to control their own border policies. You attack them today as xenophobes. You attack them as extremists, but worst of all, oh worst of all, you attack them three times for being populists. Is that not a dreadful thing? The power of the ballot box. When people dare to vote no in referendums, they are populists; when they want to control their own borders, they are populists. I put it to you that populists are actually democrats and you abuse those who want to fly the flag of populism.

Well, here it is, Mr Barroso. Here it is.

(Mr Farage, Mr Agnew and Mr Bloom held up small Union Jacks)

That flag has represented liberal democracy far more than any other Member State of this European Union and it will go on long after your star-spangled banner has disappeared.


  Philip Claeys (NI). - Voorzitter, Schengen bepaalt dat de controles aan de binnengrenzen van de EU wegvallen, maar dat de buitengrenzen wel worden gecontroleerd. Het probleem is dat de afspraak niet wordt nageleefd, want de buitengrenzen worden niet effectief gecontroleerd. We moeten dus 16 jaar na de invoering van Schengen durven erkennen, dat het Verdrag geen succes is geworden. We moeten ook durven toegeven dat de EU geen oplossing brengt, maar eerder zelf een onderdeel van het probleem is geworden. De lidstaten moeten dus opnieuw de mogelijkheid krijgen om hun grenzen te beschermen zonder bemoeienis van de EU.

Er zijn nog meer maatregelen dringend nodig. Frontex bijvoorbeeld moet schepen met nepvluchtelingen terugsturen naar hun landen van herkomst in plaats van een soort veredeld ontvangstcomité te spelen. De netwerken van mensenhandelaars moeten keihard aangepakt worden. De lidstaten moeten ophouden met het belonen van illegale vreemdelingen met verblijfsvergunningen. Illegale en afgewezen politieke vluchtelingen moeten daadwerkelijk worden teruggestuurd. Wanneer dat allemaal niet gebeurt, dan garandeer ik u dat het gedaan is met Schengen en dat zou geen slechte zaak zijn.

Ik wil ook protesteren, mijnheer de Voorzitter, tegen het woordgebruik hier, tegen scheldwoorden als populisten, extremisten e.d. voor mensen die gewoon de grenzen van hun land willen beschermen. Hier moet een einde aan komen. Dit is niet correct. We moeten ook toegeven dat de regels moeten worden toegepast; men spreekt echter niet over de toepassing van de regels, maar men begint enkel maar te schelden.


  Simon Busuttil (PPE). - Mr President, the Schengen zone is indeed a very important and visible achievement for European citizens and the message is coming out clearly from this Chamber today that we need to fight together not just to preserve it, but to strengthen it further. We rely on the European Commission to achieve that and the European Parliament will be behind the Commission in strengthening Schengen, but if there are two lessons that we have learnt in respect of what happened in recent weeks they are these.

First of all, the internal borders within Schengen depend on a common strategy, a common concern about our external borders. If our external borders are weak then we will have problems on our internal borders and we need to look at that. Italy felt under pressure with 25 000 people; it gave them a temporary permit, they moved to France. France felt under pressure and it re-erected national borders. So the pressure went onto the internal borders and therefore the external borders are a common concern.

Secondly, Schengen needs solidarity and solidarity is also about sharing the responsibility – burden-sharing – and sharing responsibility is also relative to the size of the Member State. On the current system, people who arrive in one country remain in the country where they arrive because our laws, including the Dublin Regulation, ensure that they have to remain in the first country of arrival. This clearly needs to change because it is no longer tenable. One thousand people arriving in the smallest Member State, my country Malta, are equivalent, population-wise, to over one million people arriving in the entire European Union. So yes, 25 000 people are nothing, they are a drop in the ocean for the entire Union but 1000 people arriving in the southernmost Member State are a lot. We need therefore to link Schengen with solidarity; Schengen needs solidarity.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))


  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, the speaker talked of strengthening Schengen. Does that include strengthening Schengen’s borders and, in particular, the borders between Greece and Turkey?


  Simon Busuttil (PPE). - Mr President, I thank the Member for his question.

One of the conditions for joining the Schengen zone is, indeed, strengthening external borders. Precisely because they are a common concern, it is the responsibility of all the Member States to ensure that the external borders are strong.

Once you fulfil those conditions, then you can join Schengen. This is precisely what countries such as Bulgaria and Romania have done, and it is precisely why we have helped Greece, by means of a Frontex mission there on the Turkish-Greek border.

So, yes, this goes to show that strengthening external borders is also a common concern.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, es cierto que ayer, 9 de mayo, conmemoramos ese momento fundacional de la Unión Europea que nos enseñó que Europa se haría con pequeños pasos y no de una vez y para siempre, o lo que es lo mismo, que Europa no está hecha de modo definitivo ni irreversible, y que cada una de sus consecuciones debemos preservarla con el trabajo de todos los días.

Schengen es un espacio de libre circulación de personas, pero además es un símbolo de lo mejor que ha hecho Europa en los últimos 20 años, por tanto, de la mejor Europa.

Y es un mensaje en la dirección equivocada que 25 000 inmigrantes llegados a esta orilla del Mediterráneo sean presentados como una carga insoportable para la Unión Europea. Alemania demostró que no lo son. El archipiélago canario y España demostraron que 30 000 llegados al año desde las costas africanas no eran una carga insoportable para la Unión Europea.

La respuesta no puede ser, por tanto, cuestionar Schengen con ocasión de ese flujo migratorio, sino, por el contrario, mostrar que lo que todavía queda por hacer no es corregir las debilidades por los excesos de Schengen, sino fortalecer Schengen, completando esa cláusula de solidaridad, que está contemplada en el espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia, de acuerdo con el Tratado de Lisboa, y completando el paquete de asilo que está aún pendiente de tramitación, estableciendo definitivamente ese Sistema de Información Schengen de segunda generación y el mecanismo de verificación, que es el que estipula las condiciones de acceso al espacio de libre circulación, como este Parlamento ha votado favorablemente que lo hagan Rumanía y Bulgaria, que tienen derecho a incorporarse al espacio de libre circulación.

Pero, sobre todo, y también, recabando para este Parlamento Europeo la competencia para decidir con el Consejo en la materia. Por eso recuerdo que no es aceptable la propuesta de que el procedimiento invoque la base jurídica del artículo 70, que excluye al Parlamento, y reclamamos el artículo 77.

Una última consideración, señor Presidente, se refiere a los populismos, porque no se combate el populismo imitando sus soluciones tibias, sino, por el contrario, plantándole cara con soluciones de futuro y no de pasado.


  Renate Weber (ALDE). - Mr President, Mr Verhofstadt asked the Commission to rewrite the communication but I wonder if, before it is rewritten, we could get a clear answer today as to whether or not you are aiming to improve the current existing system, to temporarily close borders, or to add something to the existing system. That would be a good way of solving at least one of our questions.

Having said this, it is fair to say that we concur with the Commission’s aim of improving Schengen governance by reviewing the evaluation mechanism on the basis of a Community approach. Parliament shares this view and, in this context, I have to say that we are deeply disappointed by the Council’s approach.

In fact what the Council wants to do is simply to isolate the Parliament. I really wonder why the Council almost constantly seeks to undermine the great achievement that is the codecision role of the European Parliament. We represent European citizens, and we should all work to serve European citizens. Perhaps the Council should also understand its role as an EU institution rather than a mere gathering of 27 Member States.

The truth is that the answer to this migration flow, whether or not it is due to what has happened in North Africa and the Southern Mediterranean, is to come up with legislation involving a common policy on asylum and migration, which Parliament has worked on and which is being blocked in the Council.


  Konrad Szymański (ECR). - Pomimo, że mieszkam stosunkowo daleko, w Polsce, to mam wrażenie, że całkowicie rozumiem niepokoje, jakie budzi niekontrolowana imigracja we Francji czy we Włoszech. Imigracja z Afryki Północnej jest naturalnym czynnikiem podnoszącym napięcia kulturowe i społeczne, potęgującym presję na budżety socjalne państw członkowskich. A więc jest o czym rozmawiać. Nie należy odwracać głowy. Francuzi, Włosi, Maltańczycy płacą dzisiaj najwyższy rachunek za to, że kontrola granic zewnętrznych Unii Europejskiej po prostu nie działa. Płacą ten rachunek narody europejskie również za to, że nasze wysiłki, by wyhamować dynamikę imigracji do Europy, nie odnoszą sukcesu.

Mam tylko jeden apel. Chciałbym, aby zmiany w kodeksie Schengen nie były pretekstem do tego, by ograniczać wolność podróżowania wobec obywateli państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej. Takie postulaty od bardzo dawna podnoszone są na granicy polsko-niemieckiej wobec obywateli polskich. Będzie łatwiej znaleźć porozumienie, jeśli będziemy mieli pełne gwarancje, że zmiany w kodeksie Schengen nie dotkną obywateli państw członkowskich.


  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL). - Monsieur le Président, nous sommes effectivement confrontés à un débat surréaliste. Il faudrait remettre en cause la liberté de circulation des personnes en Europe et remettre en place les frontières nationales pour faire face à des flux de migrants qui s'abattraient sur l'Europe depuis la révolution tunisienne.

Si les conséquences de ces gesticulations n'étaient pas aussi dramatiques et éloignées de la réalité, on pourrait en rire. Mais plus de 1 150 personnes sont mortes en Méditerranée depuis le début de l'année 2011. 23 000 Tunisiens sont arrivés en Italie. Pendant ce temps–là, plus de 700 000 personnes ont fui la Libye pour se réfugier dans les pays voisins et ont eu un autre accueil que celui que saurait leur réserver l'Europe.

MM. Sarkozy et Berlusconi font prévaloir des intérêts électoralistes à courte vue, manient les peurs et font croire à une invasion. Foutaise! Quand l'Europe cessera–t–elle de mettre en contradiction ses discours et ses actes? Que nous propose–t–on aujourd'hui? Au–delà des mots, céder aux pressions populistes, encore et toujours renforcer Frontex, poursuivre la construction de l'Europe forteresse. Les frontières n'ont jamais arrêté personne, pas plus aux heures les plus sombres de notre histoire qu'aujourd'hui. N'a–t–on pas un autre message à faire passer aux démocraties naissantes de l'autre côté de la Méditerranée?

L'Union a tendu la main aux dictateurs pendant des années au mépris de ses valeurs. N'est–il pas temps qu'elle ouvre les yeux? Moi, je crois que si.



  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). - Voorzitter, ik denk dat eerst mijnheer Borghezio van de EFD-Fractie aan de beurt is.


  Mario Borghezio (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa vicenda ha il merito di aver fatto emergere grandi ipocrisie.

L'unico governo dell'UE che ha come ministro degli Interni un esponente di un partito di quelli che voi definite populisti è stato quello che ha avuto il coraggio di prendere il provvedimento più umanitario, quello di dare a 25.000 tunisini il permesso di circolare. Questo perché abbiamo constatato sul terreno che non si trattava di 25.000 delinquenti, bensì persone scappate dalla Tunisia. Si trattava di un'emergenza e quindi bisognava affrontare la situazione con buonsenso e noi abbiamo cercato di dare un contributo.

Questo dimostra una verità, e cioè che in molte situazioni i veri buoni siamo noi cattivi, noi che affermavamo la necessità del controllo dell'immigrazione e dei confini esterni, noi che continuiamo a implorare l'Europa – come giustamente ha fatto il collega Cohn-Bendit – di spalmare sul suo territorio quelli che potrebbero diventare 50.000 o 100.000 profughi, perché le persone che scappano dalla Libia non sono delinquenti.

Queste sono le chiare parole di un movimento che difende territorio e identità, che è contro questa immigrazione perché non vuole lo sradicamento dei popoli, che condanna il razzismo e la xenofobia ma anche l'ipocrisia.


  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). - Voorzitter, we hebben één Europees asiel- en immigratiebeleid, één en hetzelfde afschuwelijke beleid voor de hele EU. De recente rampzalige migratiestroom vanuit Noord-Afrika en het gedonder met het falende Schengen-Verdrag tonen aan dat het asiel- en immigratiebeleid terug moet naar de lidstaten. De ene lidstaat is simpelweg de andere niet. Eén algemeen Europees beleid werkt niet.

Voorzitter, het voorstel van Eurocommissaris Malmström inzake Schengen is regelrecht een slappe hap. Het is krankjorum dat zij bepaalt dat lidstaten niet zelf mogen besluiten om grenscontroles uit te voeren en zo nodig de grenzen ook te sluiten. Lidstaten hebben last van tienduizenden kansarme migranten uit Noord-Afrika, maar van Malmström mogen zij hier niets tegen doen. Nog altijd komen er bootjes met gelukzoekende migranten aan op Lampedusa. Nog altijd woekert de migratie-ellende voort. Maar nee, van Eurocommissaris Malmström mogen de lidstaten zich hier niet tegen weren. In plaats daarvan wauwelt zij iets over solidariteit.

Voorzitter, de lidstaten zijn helaas ook al niet meer de baas in eigen staat. Europa is de baas. De lidstaten willen die bevoegdheden weer terug. De lidstaten moeten het asiel- en migratiebeleid weer zelf kunnen bepalen. Wat gaat de Commissie daaraan doen?


  Carlos Coelho (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, caras e caros Colegas, queria começar por dizer à Comissária Cecilia Malmström que partilho o justo elogio que lhe foi feito pelo Presidente Barroso, pelo trabalho que está a fazer nesta área.

O facto de atravessarmos um período conturbado com pressões migratórias não pode servir de desculpa para fragilizar uma das maiores conquistas da integração europeia, que é exactamente o espaço Schengen.

Schengen é sinónimo de liberdade de circulação e esta realidade não pode nem deve ser revertida, mas sim protegida, reforçada e desenvolvida. Estou igualmente de acordo que o bom controlo das fronteiras externas é essencial. Quando ele não se verifica, fragiliza-se a segurança do espaço Schengen, mina-se a credibilidade da União e destrói-se a confiança mútua.

Saúdo, assim, o reconhecimento feito pela Comissão Europeia, na comunicação apresentada na semana passada, da importância do espaço Schengen e a aposta no seu reforço e desenvolvimento. E concordo com o Presidente Barroso que é necessário uma maior solidariedade e partilha de responsabilidades entre os Estados-Membros. O problema não reside tanto nas regras de Schengen, mas na forma como os Estados-Membros aplicam as regras sem responsabilidade nem solidariedade.

E, por isso, precisamos de um verdadeiro mecanismo de avaliação de Schengen. Este Parlamento está disposto a trabalhar com lealdade para criar esse mecanismo, um mecanismo que não faça double standards, isto é, que não seja mais exigente com os países candidatos do que com aqueles que já são membros do clube.

Mas, Sra. Comissária, estou preocupado. Estou preocupado com o silêncio da Presidência do Conselho no início deste debate relativamente a este mecanismo, como estou preocupado com o silêncio do Conselho durante um ano relativamente ao mecanismo de reinstalação de refugiados, como já foi recordado pelo Sr. Deputado Rui Tavares. Nas três instituições, a instituição que não está a proceder bem nesta área é o Conselho, e é bom que arrepie caminho o mais depressa possível.


  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), "blauwe kaart"-vraag aan Van der Stoep. Voorzitter, ik wil mijnheer Van der Stoep de volgende vraag stellen: Wat gaat mijnheer Van der Stoep zeggen tegen de Nederlanders die terugkomen van twee weken vakantie in Frankrijk en tussen Antwerpen en Hazeldonk de grens over willen en daar onderweg naar huis in een gigantische file terecht komen, in dezelfde file waarin de vrachtwagenchauffeurs staan die onderweg zijn naar de Rotterdamse haven om hun vracht te lossen of te laden, mochten er weer grenscontroles worden ingevoerd?


  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). - Voorzitter, mevrouw Sargentini weet heel goed dat wij helemaal niet voor nieuwe douanepoortjes zijn; tussen 1992, sinds we de open grenzen hebben, en het gezamenlijk asiel- en immigratiebeleid van vorig jaar heeft het ook allemaal prima gewerkt. Op een bepaald moment gingen we zelf over onze eigen grenzen en waar u aan voorbijgaat is het feit dat er nu 25.000 economische vluchtelingen in Italië zijn die een visum krijgen. Dat zijn economische vluchtelingen. Die moeten zo snel mogelijk terug naar hun land. Die hadden niet eens in procedure mogen gaan. De PVV is hier altijd heel helder in geweest, wij willen die poortjes niet terug, maar we willen wel gewoon ons eigen asiel- en migratiebeleid kunnen bepalen en dat weet u best.




  Claude Moraes (S&D). - Madam President, the position of the S&D Group is very clear. We have heard all the background as to why Schengen is being breached and we have waited since 1999 for any kind of common migration or asylum policy.

So we are very clear in our messages. First to the Commission: on Schengen, you want a Community mechanism for collective decision-making, you want to move away from intergovernmentalism, you want a lock on the political opportunism that we have seen from Italy and from France. So please do not make the message ambiguous in the statement. Make it clear that you will have a lock and you will prevent that type of opportunism which will in the end break Schengen.

To the Council: you have waited since 1999 for a common European asylum system, you have created a situation where solidarity and burden-sharing are often spoken of in this place, but we are nowhere near the formal mechanism for burden-sharing in the European Community. You are blocking much of the work we are doing here in Parliament. Unblock it. Work with us and the Commission to ensure that solidarity means solidarity, burden-sharing means burden-sharing.

And finally, the Commission is looking ahead to a migration policy. Work with us. Do not be timid, be courageous and ensure that when we fix Schengen, we also fix our common migration policy and we have something to be proud of.


  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - Madam President, like others I think that Commissioner Malmström is doing a very good job, but I also feel, in view of President Barroso’s robust defence of Schengen free movement today, that I do not really understand how the notion could possibly have taken hold that the Commission’s proposed EU-level mechanism is going to make it easier to reintroduce internal border controls. Yet that notion has taken hold. It could not possibly be, could it, that different messages are being sent to different audiences, one to MEPs, maybe one to Paris and Rome? The EU’s migration and asylum pressures ought to be capable of effective management by competent governments.

Unfortunately we have too many governments now which are playing to the extremist right-wing gallery. The European Commission must indeed defend EU internal free movement and not throw gestures to the likes of President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Berlusconi for electioneering purposes. It should highlight the failure of Member States to implement EU migration rules. Lastly, the Commission must investigate allegations about 61 migrants being left to die, despite their making contact with Italian coastguards, a NATO warship and a military helicopter. Any authorities that breached international maritime and humanitarian law must be brought to book.


  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). - Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Ich glaube, man muss es auf den Punkt bringen: Wir brauchen weder heute noch morgen irgendeine neue Regelung für eine temporäre oder andere Wiedereinführung der Grenzkontrollen. Wir müssen doch begreifen, dass Freizügigkeit – und das ist doch die Botschaft der Europäischen Union – ein Gut ist, mit dem man nicht einfach willkürlich verfahren kann, willkürlich umgehen kann! Sie ist ein Bürgerrecht, das man nicht einfach relativieren kann!

Und wissen Sie, was mich – ehrlich gesagt – aufregt: Es wird ganz viel von Solidarität gesprochen. Wer redet denn von Solidarität mit den Ländern in Afrika, die jetzt Hunderttausende Flüchtlinge aufnehmen müssen und aufnehmen – ohne große Debatte? Und wer redet über die Solidarität mit den Menschen, die vor Krieg flüchten und hierher nach Europa kommen? Man muss diesen Menschen doch auch ein bisschen Respekt entgegenbringen!

Ich muss auch ganz ehrlich sagen, ich will überhaupt nicht über irgendwelche Änderungen von Schengen, von irgendwelchen Regularien sprechen, sondern darüber, wie wir endlich sinnvoll mit Migration umgehen. Das erreichen wir eben nicht mit Frontex als Abschiebungsmaschinerie, sondern das erreichen wir mit einem demokratischen und humanistischen Asylrecht. Darum muss es gehen in Europa und das muss überall in Europa gelten. Darum müssen wir kämpfen, das ist die eigentliche Aufgabe!


  Véronique Mathieu (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, je m'adresse à la Commission, à mes collègues, je salue la présence du Conseil. La question qui se pose aujourd'hui émerge de la gestion de l'espace Schengen en 2011. Celui-ci n'est plus l'espace des cinq États membres des années 1980, c'est au contraire un espace qui n'a cessé de s'élargir ces dernières années et qui compte aujourd'hui vingt-cinq États, dont trois qui ne sont pas membres de l'Union européenne.

Comme toutes les politiques européennes, la coopération Schengen doit donc s'adapter à la réalité qu'elle recouvre aujourd'hui et qui n'est plus la même que celle d'il y a dix ans. C'est en ce sens qu'il faut lire les propositions des gouvernements italien et français, et les réponses pragmatiques et nécessaires apportées aujourd'hui par la Commission dans sa communication sur l'immigration. La confiance mutuelle entre les États parties à l'espace Schengen est certes la pierre angulaire de la coopération Schengen. Mais cette confiance repose sur des obligations réciproques. Si l'une des parties ne respecte pas ses obligations et crée des appels d'air, c'est tout le système qui devient défaillant. Il doit donc être possible aux autres États de répondre à cette défaillance en rétablissant un contrôle temporaire et strictement encadré de ses frontières. Ce faisant, ces États défaillants seront clairement invités à mieux contrôler leurs frontières extérieures.

Par ailleurs, ces mesures, telles que présentées par la Commission, respecteraient pleinement l'esprit de Schengen dans la mesure où ces contrôles seraient réintroduits en dernier ressort et la décision serait prise au niveau européen et non pas intergouvernemental. De telles mesures seront intrinsèquement liées à l'ensemble des mesures envisagées à long terme dans la perspective d'une politique migratoire commune. Il est notamment indispensable de renforcer Frontex, de prévoir plus de solidarité – et j'en termine – pour soutenir les États situés aux frontières extérieures. La situation qu'a connue la Méditerranée ces dernières années ne fait que mettre en exergue une lacune de l'acquis Schengen.

En quelques semaines, les migrants venant des pays riverains de la Méditerranée ont représenté un pourcentage notable de l'immigration annuelle française. Cet acquis n'est pas statique mais doit au contraire évoluer. J'espère que cette proposition sera rapidement adoptée afin de garantir au plus vite une meilleure gestion de notre espace Schengen et d'assurer, ce faisant, la sécurité de nos frontières extérieures, communes.


  Ioan Enciu (S&D). - Fenomenele migratorii excepţionale, precum cele din sudul Mediteranei, nu trebuie să ameninţe spaţiul Schengen. Comisia Europeană nu trebuie să promoveze ideile anumitor state membre care îl pun sub semnul întrebării. Rolul Comisiei este de a proteja spaţiul Schengen prin promovarea de soluţii europene menţionate în acquis-ul Schengen. Statele membre trebuie să dea dovadă de solidaritate în gestionarea spaţiului Schengen. Consiliul, de asemenea, trebuie să contribuie la consolidarea spaţiului Schengen prin aprobarea imediată a accesării României şi Bulgariei la acesta. Aşa-zisele probleme ale spaţiului Schengen sunt false şi nu au de a face cu libera circulaţie în interiorul Uniunii, ci cu incapacitatea sau reaua voinţă a unor state de a face faţă problemelor legate de imigraţia din afara Uniunii Europene. Soluţia pe viitor stă în ameliorarea sistemului european de gestionare a migraţiei, finalizarea sistemului european comun de azil, a cadrului juridic privind migraţia ilegală şi legală şi sporirea rolului FRONTEX.


  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signora Presidente, nelle ultime settimane massicci flussi migratori hanno provocato inquietudine e reazioni fra i cittadini europei.

Taluni Stati membri hanno così definito riflessioni comuni, per effetto delle quali la questione legata ai flussi migratori deve essere tenuta nella migliore valutazione.

Schengen oggi è patrimonio consolidato della civiltà europea e come tale va tutelato e conservato. Questo non impedisce che il ripristino temporaneo delle frontiere a determinate condizioni possa risultare un'opzione possibile. Ben vengano pertanto meccanismi di compensazione basati su un approccio a livello comunitario che garantisca in ogni caso l'applicazione dell'area Schengen in linea con le attese della popolazione interessata.

In questa direzione va l'apprezzabile proposta della Commissione del 4 maggio 2011, con la quale l'area Schengen è resa più flessibile e concertata per una regolare gestione dei flussi migratori interni. Una governance rafforzata, quella proposta, che deve essere certamente tenuta in debita considerazione in una fase di particolare crisi.

Ho ascoltato con particolare interesse il Presidente Barroso qui, a Bruxelles e a Palermo sulle politiche regionali a tutela della Sicilia e di Lampedusa, dove continuano ad approdare barconi che sarebbero altrimenti in balia della furia del mare e vi sarebbero altri morti. Di questo, signora Presidente, bisogna continuare a tenere conto.


  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). - Madame la Présidente, dans ces débats majeurs sur les questions migratoires, nous devons éviter à tout prix de tomber dans le piège que constituent les déclarations opportunistes de MM. Sarkozy et Berlusconi sur les accords de Schengen. L'Europe, les flux migratoires sont des punching–balls bien confortables pour certains gouvernements européens qui tentent ainsi de masquer leurs défaillances économiques et sociales sur le plan national en courant après les thèses populistes de l'extrême droite.

Aujourd'hui, attaquer la libre circulation, réussite tangible de la construction européenne, est une manipulation et un danger. D'un côté, les commentateurs nous disent que la Commission a donné raison à la France et à l'Italie. Aujourd'hui, M. Barroso nous dit ne pas vouloir donner raison aux États membres populistes. Qu'est–ce qui est vrai dans tout ça?

La communication du 4 mai ne parle pas que du rétablissement des contrôles aux frontières intérieures, elle évoque de nombreux autres sujets: lutte contre la traite des êtres humains, immigration légale, réinstallation des réfugiés, asile... Voilà les vrais enjeux! Le problème, c'est qu'elle reste à mi–chemin.

Madame Malmström, vous voulez, semble–t–il, réintroduire une approche communautaire, c'est fondamental. Je dis chiche! Faisons plus d'Europe, plus d'intégration là où les États membres sont tentés de ne défendre que leurs intérêts particuliers.



  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, στις 2 Ιουλίου του 1990, λίγες ημέρες αφότου είχε υπογραφεί η συμφωνία για την εφαρμογή της Σένγκεν, το περιοδικό Times δημοσίευσε ένα σχετικό άρθρο, το οποίο ακούστε πώς άρχιζε: «το όνειρο μιας Ευρώπης χωρίς σύνορα», έγραψαν τότε, «ήρθε ένα βήμα πιο κοντά στο να γίνει πραγματικότητα» και ακούστε και πώς τελείωνε: «για να αντιμετωπισθεί μια πιθανή αύξηση στην παράνομη διακίνηση ναρκωτικών, στις τρομοκρατικές δραστηριότητες και στην παράνομη μετανάστευση οι έλεγχοι στα εξωτερικά σύνορα της ζώνης Σένγκεν πρέπει να γίνουν πιο αυστηροί».

Αυτά γράφτηκαν 21 χρόνια πριν και αυτό, ακριβώς, καλούμαστε να πράξουμε και σήμερα, όπως σχετικά αναφέρθηκε και ο Πρόεδρος της Επιτροπής. Να κρατήσουμε το όνειρο ζωντανό και να εντείνουμε τους ελέγχους στα σύνορα της Ιταλίας, της Ελλάδας και συνολικά του ευρωπαϊκού Νότου. Γιατί αυτά, ξέρετε, είναι και τα σύνορα των άλλων χωρών, της Γερμανίας, της Γαλλίας, του Βελγίου, ως παράδειγμα αναφέρω αυτές τις χώρες, αυτά είναι τα νότια σύνορα της ενωμένης Ευρώπης. Και τηρώντας τις αρχές της αλληλεγγύης και της αμοιβαιότητας που κρατούν αυτή την Ένωση ζωντανή, να ξαναδούμε όλα εκείνα τα οποία δεν φαίνεται να αποδίδουν, να αναθεωρήσουμε την συμφωνία Δουβλίνο ΙΙ, όπως ήδη συζητάμε στο Κοινοβούλιό μας, να μοιράσουμε δίκαια τα βάρη που πρέπει να επωμισθεί το κάθε κράτος μέλος, να κρατήσουμε όλοι μαζί, επαναλαμβάνω, το όνειρο ζωντανό.


  David-Maria Sassoli (S&D). - Signora Presidente, mettere in discussione Schengen a nostro avviso significa mettere in discussione l'Europa. Se l'Europa sarà ancora più debole, come vogliono i governi di destra, sarà sempre più facile chiedersi – come ha fatto il ministro dell'Interno italiano Maroni – se ha ancora senso continuare a restare in Europa.

La risposta, invece, è quella che prevede un maggiore coinvolgimento dei meccanismi comunitari. In pratica, serve più Europa e non meno Europa e la Commissione deve dirlo con più forza. L'Europa migliore è quella che nella notte di domenica ha visto gli abitanti di Lampedusa salvare, in una straordinaria catena di solidarietà umana, 500 naufraghi destinati a morte sicura. L'Europa peggiore, se confermate le notizie del quotidiano The Guardian, sarebbe quella di forze militari della NATO che non intervengono per salvare uomini, donne e bambini alla deriva.

Se ci è ben chiaro quello che preferiamo, signora Commissaria Malmström, occorre che al Consiglio europeo di giugno la Commissione riesca a convincere gli Stati a formulare una politica europea per l'immigrazione, perché un'Europa à la carte sarebbe il fallimento del sogno europeo.


  Wim van de Camp (PPE). - Mevrouw de Voorzitter, ik ben in juni 2009 gekozen in het Europees Parlement van de Europese burgers. Ik ben niet gekozen in een Parlement van de instituties en ook niet in een Parlement van individuele lidstaten. Ik zeg dat toch even, omdat er onder de Europese burgers veel vragen zijn over Schengen. Het gaat niet om populisme, het gaat niet om angst. Het gaat om vragen van de Europese burgers; hoe gaan wij om met Schengen? Er zijn veel vragen op dit moment. Daar vraag ik dan ook aandacht voor.

Natuurlijk, als de Commissievoorzitter zegt dat het principe van het vrije verkeer van personen overeind moet worden gehouden, dan steun ik dat. 25.000 Tunesiërs kunnen niet 502 miljoen Europeanen gijzelen, maar de vragen blijven en het draagvlak voor Schengen in Europa komt in gevaar. Vandaar dat ik ook kan instemmen met tijdelijke mogelijkheden voor grenscontroles, zoals mijn collega Iacolino zegt. Ik begrijp best dat de burden sharing niet in één keer tot stand kan komen.

Tot slot, Voorzitter, nog een vraag: hoe gaat het nu met het opstarten van het Europees Ondersteuningsbureau voor asielzaken op Malta? Ik hoor dat dat nog moeilijk van de grond komt. Misschien zou de commissaris nogmaals kunnen uitleggen wanneer het Bureau daadwerkelijk van start gaat.


  Carmen Romero López (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, señora Malmström, el problema con la comunicación que ha presentado la Comisión es que es una comunicación que no es creíble en el momento actual, ni para los problemas que conlleva a largo plazo el tema aquí planteado, ni siquiera para las soluciones de emergencia que en este momento la Unión Europea tenía que haber puesto en marcha.

Desgraciadamente, la Comisión lo que ha demostrado es tener una gran debilidad, porque no se puede contentar a todo el mundo. No se puede contentar por una parte al señor Sarkozy y al señor Berlusconi, y, por otra parte, tener a largo plazo una política común de asilo y de inmigración. Es imposible introducir en una comunicación como esta ambigüedades que no llevan a ningún sitio y que lo que demuestran es que esta es una política que no enfrenta con valentía la situación que estamos viviendo.

Y le hace un flaco favor el señor Barroso cuando dice que usted ha puesto lo mejor que puede para encontrar un equilibrio, porque es que aquí no se trata de encontrar un equilibrio. Aquí se trata de responder a una situación de emergencia como la que está planteada, de tener financiación y de conseguir de verdad el acuerdo de los Estados miembros para una política común de asilo y para esa Oficina de Asilo y para tantos desafíos que tenemos presentes, y aquí no hay nada de eso.

¿Cómo va usted a hablar de programas regionales de cooperación con los terceros países, si los demócratas de Túnez y de Libia están viendo que nosotros les cerramos las fronteras en nuestros países? ¿Es posible hablar de eso? No se puede hablar ambiguamente. Estamos tratando temas lo suficientemente serios como para que usted, señora Malmström, se tome también las cosas con seriedad.


  Hubert Pirker (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich halte die Diskussion über die Wiedereinführung von Grenzkontrollen und die Modifikation des Schengen-Mechanismus für absolut überzogen und überflüssig. Wir haben diese Diskussion ja auch nur, weil Berlusconi und Sarkozy nationalstaatlich gedacht und populistisch gehandelt haben, als sie wegen der Migranten aus Nordafrika drohten, die Grenzen zwischen den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten wieder zu kontrollieren.

Ich war auch verwundert, das muss ich offen sagen, wie schnell Kommissionspräsident Barroso die Diskussion aufgegriffen hat, anstatt hier als europäisches Korrektiv aufzutreten. Schengen ist eine großartige Errungenschaft, Schengen ist ein europäisches Symbol und kombiniert in idealer Weise Reisefreiheit, offene Grenzen und Sicherheit. Schengen darf niemals in Frage gestellt werden! In Sonderfällen haben wir ohnehin jetzt bereits die Möglichkeit, wieder zeitlich und regional begrenzt Kontrollen einzuführen, sofern eine schwerwiegende Bedrohung der inneren Sicherheit gegeben ist.

Was wir also nicht brauchen, ist eine Diskussion über Schengen. Was wir brauchen, ist vielmehr eine Diskussion über Maßnahmen zur Stärkung von Frontex, damit wir die Außengrenzen der Europäischen Union optimal sichern und damit die Reisefreiheit gewährleisten können, eine Diskussion über rasche Asylverfahren und gesteuerte Migration, über eine Kooperation zur Bekämpfung der Ursachen der Migration, über Rückübernahmeabkommen.

Ich folge hier gerne den Vorschlägen von Kommissarin Malmström, die hier sehr breit angelegte Vorschläge gemacht hat, und ich lade die Kommission ein, dem Parlament zu folgen und nicht einigen Vertretern des Rates.


  Σταύρος Λαμπρινίδης (S&D). - Κυρία Επίτροπε, πολιτικά σε μια περίοδο κατά την οποία οι θεμελιώδεις αρχές της συνοχής και της αλληλεγγύης της Ένωσης βάλλονται από παντού, ιδιαίτερα από νεοεθνικισμούς, που τους ξέρουμε καλά, η Επιτροπή θα έπρεπε να κατακεραυνώνει, κατά την άποψή μου, καθημερινά όσους επιτίθενται στα σύμβολα της πολιτικής ευρωπαϊκής ενοποίησης.

Και όμως είμαστε σήμερα εδώ, ακριβώς επειδή δεν το έκανε αυτό. Επέτρεψε να ανοίξει μία συζήτηση πιεζόμενη από κάποια κράτη μέλη για τον ακρογωνιαίο λίθο της ευρωπαϊκής ταυτότητας: το Σένγκεν. Αλλά, και νομικά η πρόταση της Επιτροπής προσκρούει στα άρθρα 78 και 80 της Συνθήκης. Όταν ένα κράτος μέλος δέχεται έντονες μεταναστευτικές πιέσεις, η Συνθήκη ορίζει ρητά ότι η Ευρώπη πρέπει να του προσφέρει στήριξη και αλληλεγγύη. Η επαναφορά των εσωτερικών συνοριακών ελέγχων δεν είναι αλληλεγγύη, είναι τιμωρία. Δεν διαμοιράζει δίκαια το βάρος αντιμετώπισης της πίεσης στα εξωτερικά σύνορα, που θα μπορούσε να προέλθει - για παράδειγμα - από ένα πιο δυνατό FRONTEX, αλλά μεταθέτει ακόμα πιο έντονα στο κράτος μέλος το βάρος. Με λίγα λόγια, κυρία Επίτροπε, δεν αποτελεί "burden sharing", αλλά μία εξόφθαλμη μορφή "burden dumping".Εσείς, η Επιτροπή, επιτρέψατε να γίνει αυτή η συζήτηση και πρέπει να την διακόψετε εδώ, εσείς, τώρα!


  Kinga Gál (PPE). - Bizottság Elnöke, Biztos Asszony, Miniszter Asszony! A schengeni rendszer az egyik legkézzelfoghatóbb vívmánya az Uniónak. Ha megkérdezik az európai polgárokat, a szabad határellenőrzés nélküli mozgásukat fogják egyaránt, mint számukra fontosat az Európai Unióban, említeni. Ezért lényeges, hogy ezt a rendszert megőrizzük, és mindent megtegyünk azért, hogy polgáraink szabad mozgását, a határok nélküliséget Európának megőrizzük. Ez kell maradjon a legfőbb célunk.

Az értékek, a vívmányaink különösen akkor szorulnak védelemre, ha kihívások érik azokat. És a kihívást ma a hirtelen jelentkező bevándorlási és menekülthullám jelenti. De ahhoz, hogy ezeket a kihívásokat kezeljük, konkrét javaslatokra és megoldásokra van szükség.

Ez azzal kezdődik, hogy szétválasztjuk, pontosítjuk, hogy miről beszélünk, hogy szétválasztjuk a menekültkérdést és az illegális bevándorlást, hogy használjuk a létező alapelveinket, amelyekre építhetünk, mint a szolidaritás, az együttműködés, hogy használjuk a létező intézményeinket, mint a FRONTEX, vagy a létező szabályainkat.

Üdvözlöm a magyar álláspontot, Győri államtitkár asszony álláspontját, és hogy Barroso úr is azt mondta: „Megerősíteni a schengeni vívmányokat, és nem pedig visszalépni, jól működtetni kell azokat.”


  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). - Pirmiausia norėčiau pabrėžti, kad atsakas į iškilusias migracijos problemas turėtų likti Šengeno susitarimo rėmuose. Šengeno teisynas ir šiuo metu numato galimybes laikinai atstatyti vidaus sienų apsaugą kai kyla grėsmė viešai tvarkai ir saugumui ir šių nuostatų iš tikrųjų visiškai pakanka. Taigi, gal Komisija galėtų plačiau paaiškinti Komisijos komunikate „Dėl migracijos“ numatytus papildomus atvejus, leidžiančius laikinai išplėsti sienų apsaugą, kurie komunikate yra formuluojami labai abstrakčiai, o jų taikoma sritis iš tikrųjų per menkai apibrėžta? Ar tai reiškia, kad Europos Komisija pataikauja dviejų didžiųjų Europos Sąjungos valstybių vadovams ir siekia sugriauti vieną didžiausių Europos Sąjungos vertybių – laisvą erdvę ir laisvą judėjimą? Taip pat noriu išsakyti pastabą dėl komunikato turinio, kadangi susidaro įspūdis, jog komunikatas buvo parašytas vien šiam atvejui, kuomet yra padidėję imigracijos srautai Šiaurės Afrikos valstybių. Ar Komisija nemano, kad dokumento, kurio pavadinimas yra Komunikatas „Dėl migracijos“, turinys ir esmė turėtų būti daug platesni?


  Nadja Hirsch (ALDE). - Frau Präsidentin! Zum ersten Mal sind in Deutschland und in Österreich die Grenzen gefallen, und wir haben endlich Arbeitnehmerfreizügigkeit für die osteuropäischen Länder. Hier werden die Grenzen niedergerissen, auf der anderen Seite versuchen Sie, sie wieder hochzufahren.

Ich kann es schlichtweg nicht akzeptieren, dass zwei Mitgliedstaaten, zwei profiliersüchtige Männer es wirklich schaffen, dass wir darüber diskutieren, wieder Grenzkontrollen einzuführen! Das kann es nicht mehr geben, und wir können uns vor allem nicht diese monokausale Diskussion aufzwingen lassen. Es hat doch nichts damit zu tun, dass, wenn wir Grenzen wieder hochziehen, automatisch das Flüchtlingsproblem gelöst wäre. Entschuldigen Sie! Diese Menschen haben es geschafft, unter Todesgefahren nach Europa zu kommen, die werden es auch schaffen, die Grenzen zu umgehen. Lediglich die Menschenhändler werden vielleicht gewinnen, weil die Flüchtlinge neue Wege finden müssen, die die Menschenhändler sich bezahlen lassen.

Ich kann es nicht akzeptieren, dass wir ernsthaft hierüber diskutieren, und ich fordere die Kommission auf, wirklich keine Kompromisse zu machen!


  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich bin froh, dass hier in diesem Hause von allen Seiten, auch von Seiten der Europäischen Volkspartei, der ja Sarkozy und Berlusconi angehören, klar gemacht wurde, dass wir keine neuen Regeln brauchen, dass es nicht notwendig ist, das Schengen-Übereinkommen abzuändern, sondern dass wir etwas anderes brauchen, nämlich eine gemeinsame Migrations- und Asylpolitik, die diesen Namen auch verdient. Und, Frau Malmström, ich fordere Sie auf, hier aktiv zu werden, klar zu machen, dass das Dublin-II-Abkommen geändert werden muss, um tatsächlich europäische Solidarität in Asylfragen zu ermöglichen, und klar zu machen, dass dies ein gemeinsamer Kontinent ist und dass wir nicht jene Länder, die Außengrenzen haben, allein lassen dürfen.

Aber Achtung! Italien kann selbst sehr wohl auch Verantwortung dafür übernehmen und muss das tun. Gerade ein Innenminister Maroni, selbst der Lega Nord angehörig, ist einer, der auch etwas dafür tun müsste, klar zu machen, dass es um Flüchtlinge geht, die beachtet werden müssen, und dass es hier in die richtige Richtung gehen muss. Wir brauchen einen Schutzschirm für Flüchtlinge – nicht nur für Geld und Banken – in diesem Europa, und darum brauchen wir keine neue Schengen-Regelung, sondern tatsächlich ein Europa und eine menschenwürdige Asyl- und Migrationspolitik.


  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). - Madam President, in the past couple of months, the Commission has moved rather fast in publishing two important communications aimed at addressing the challenges at hand since the outbreak of the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.

A number of policy options have been put forward and Parliament has already expressed itself on them in order to guide the Commission in drafting concrete legislative proposals.

In the communication on migration, the Commission addresses the issues of external border controls, Schengen governance and organised mobility. Why is there nothing more explicit here on burden-sharing? The communication mentions the pilot project for the resettlement of refugees in Malta, but it does not introduce the notion of a pilot project concerning relocation of unauthorised migrants or asylum seekers – and this despite the repeated calls for such a burden-sharing system from various Member States and Members of Parliament.

Why is the Commission not coming up with a concrete proposal on this? We are talking about a European area of freedom of movement; we are talking about a common European asylum system. When are you going to back up the notion of European solidarity with deeds?


  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). - Fru formand! Jeg vil gerne kvittere for det forslag, som Kommissionen har fremlagt om styrkelse af grænsekontrollen eksternt. Desværre er det ikke særligt fyldestgørende. For i en tid, hvor vi kan opleve, at flere medlemslande fører en hasarderet udlændingepolitik, der giver udlændinge i stort antal lovligt ophold i EU, og hvor den manglende grænsekontrol giver mulighed for, at man kan bevæge sig frit over grænserne, er der behov for en permanent stærkere grænsekontrol mellem EU’s medlemslande. Jeg vil i forhold til den evige tale om solidaritet også udtrykke forundring over, at man som medlemsland, som f.eks. Danmark, der har været god til at stramme sin udlændingepolitik, skal vise nogen synderlig solidaritet med lande, der ikke har formået det samme. Det naturlige ville vel være, at man respekterede, at de lande, der har den nationale suverænitet til selv at bestemme sin udlændingepolitik, også kan nyde frugten af deres gerninger.


  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Frau Präsidentin! Von den in Lampedusa aufgegriffenen tunesischen Flüchtlingen sind angeblich nur etwa 3 000 wirklich Asylanten, 20 000 oder mehr sind Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge. Solange die Union nicht endlich eingesteht, dass sie nicht alle Wirtschaftsmigranten aus aller Herren Länder aufnehmen kann, werden sich aber weiter Hunderttausende auf den Weg machen. Wenn dann Aktionen gesetzt werden wie Massenamnestien von Illegalen oder der Schengen-Vertrag wie jüngst mittels Touristenvisa gebrochen wird, dann zieht das unweigerlich weitere Zigtausende Flüchtlinge nach sich. Damit droht auch das Scheitern des Schengensystems insgesamt.

Griechenland, Italien und Malta sind ja offenbar nicht in der Lage, die EU-Außengrenze zu sichern, und Schengen-Neulinge lassen nach ihrer Aufnahme in ihren Bemühungen häufig nach. Die EU-Außengrenze ist also so löchrig wie ein Schweizer Käse und wird noch dazu von innen unterminiert. Da reichen temporäre Kontrollen nicht aus. Die EU muss Frontex tatsächlich zu einer Grenzschutzagentur ausbauen. Und wenn all dies nichts nützt, wird sicher das eine oder andere Land auf die Idee kommen, aus dem Schengen-Vertrag auszutreten.


  Андрей Ковачев (PPE). - Госпожо председател, днес трябва да си отговорим на въпроса как да опазим и балансираме между основни наши ценности: свобода, солидарност, справедливост и от друга страна сигурност. Многократно беше казано, че външните граници са солидарна отговорност на всички страни-членки. Нека не изграждаме излишни прегради помежду си. И нека сегашната ситуация да не влиза в учебниците като лош пример за евроинтеграция. Приветствам, разбира се, по-голямата роля на Frontex и допълнителните човешки и материални средства за агенцията, заедно с укрепването на оценъчния механизъм за Шенген, но не и нови изисквания за България и Румъния и спъване на тяхното членство.

Госпожа Győri, много Ви моля да ни кажете, след като България и Румъния покриха всички технически критерии за членство, което беше оценено от експертите на Съвета, каква е позицията на Съвета по времевата рамка за приемането на България и Румъния, и има ли такава дискусия в Съвета. Ако има нови правила, то те трябва да са валидни за всички и да не служат за постигане на политически цели, а да служат за надграждане на съществуващата база за опазване на нашите граници. От външнополитическа гледна точка смятам, че нашата политика на добросъседство трябва да се обвърже с изпълняването на реадмисионни задължения за съответните правителства спрямо техните граждани.


  Ulrike Rodust (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin! Offene Grenzen sind ein wichtiges Symbol für Europa. Ich möchte Sie hier und heute auf ein anderes Problem aufmerksam machen. Ich komme aus Norddeutschland, und deshalb ist für mich die deutsch-dänische Grenze auch von besonderer Bedeutung. Die rechtspopulistische dänische Volkspartei will die dänische Regierung zur Wiedereinführung von Grenzkontrollen zwingen. Grund: Angst vor Menschen aus Rumänien und Bulgarien. Das ist ein Skandal! Die Rechtspopulisten entwickeln sich rasant und werden zu einer realen Gefahr für Europa. Schutz vor grenzenloser Kriminalität muss es geben, dafür haben unsere Sicherheitsbehörden längst Alternativen zur Passkontrolle gefunden.

Mich macht es sehr traurig, dass eine unserer großen europäischen Errungenschaften aufs Spiel gesetzt werden soll. Das für Frieden und Freiheit historisch beispiellose Erfolgsprojekt EU wird auf diese Weise hochgradig gefährdet. Ich fordere die dänische Regierung auf, sich nicht von Rechtspopulisten ans Gängelband nehmen zu lassen!


  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Madam President, freedom of movement is a cornerstone of European integration. Let us not open a Pandora’s Box by revising Schengen. Let us not go back on our principles. The possibility of introducing border controls already exists. It should be temporary, exceptional and a last resort. What is needed is a common approach, a long-term vision as called for by the Commission, to respond to citizens’ concerns on security. We need to move forward to a common asylum policy by 2012, to have a common migration policy and to facilitate legal immigration for work while combating irregular immigration.

Short-term procedures that hinder resettlement have to be removed. Yes, we have to express solidarity with the Member States that are most exposed to an influx of people, but first of all our solidarity should be with the people who are fleeing tragedy. The dignity of immigrants, of people fleeing the country, has to be put back at the centre of the European debate.


  Robert Goebbels (S&D). - Madame la Présidente, je me demande si les démagogues de Rome et de Paris et si leurs acolytes ici, au Parlement européen, savent de quoi ils parlent lorsqu'ils demandent le rétablissement des contrôles aux frontières intérieures. Il y a plus d'un million de citoyens européens qui travaillent dans d'autres pays. Il y a 150 000 frontaliers qui viennent chaque jour à Luxembourg. Vous voulez les contrôler? Il y a des dizaines de millions d'Européens qui voyageront cet été. Est-ce que Berlusconi et Sarkozy veulent les contrôler aux frontières? Barroso l'a dit: dans l'espace Schengen, chaque année, il y a plus de 1,250 milliard de mouvements. Vous voulez les contrôler?

Madame Malmström, ne touchez pas à Schengen. Relisez les traités, relisez les articles 67 et 78. Tout y est. Pas besoin d'inventer quelque chose de nouveau, restons avec Schengen et avec la libre circulation des citoyens, sinon nous aurons une révolte citoyenne.


  Jens Rohde (ALDE). - Frau Präsidentin! Herr Schulz ist gegangen, aber ich freue mich, dass er und Frau Rodust klargestellt haben, es wäre keine sozialdemokratische Politik, die Grenzkontrolle wieder einzuführen. Vor zwei Jahren war es aber im Wahlkampf zur Parlamentswahl die Kernforderung der dänischen Sozialdemokraten, die Grenzen wieder zu schließen. Das waren nicht die Rechtspopulisten! Herr Jørgensen und die Parteivorsitzende Thorning-Schmidt haben gemeinsam dafür argumentiert. Ich gebe Ihnen Recht, das ist Populismus! Deswegen eine wichtige Frage an die Kommission: Kann ein Land die Grenzkontrolle wieder einführen und gleichzeitig in der Schengen-Union bleiben mit Zugang zum Informationssystem etc. oder ist das ein Entweder-oder? Die Frage ist wichtig für die dänische Debatte, und ich bitte um eine klare Antwort.


  Mario Mauro (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, prendo atto del fatto che, per salvare Schengen, molti vorrebbero offrire come soluzione la cacciata dall'Europa di Sarkozy e Berlusconi.

Io ritengo, più semplicemente, che ci si possa limitare a rafforzare FRONTEX, vale a dire a rendere più sicure le frontiere esterne dell'Unione europea. Ricordo a tutti che molti governi in questo momento si sottraggono al dovere solidale di partecipazione a FRONTEX.

Accanto a questo, mi preme indicare un altro punto cruciale: dietro all'emergenza umanitaria e al problema dell'immigrazione si cela un problema politico. Infatti, mentre l'Europa è molto presente sul fronte umanitario dell'immigrazione – concordo con il Commissario Malmström – è invece assente sul piano politico della tragedia che c'è dietro. Più Malmström e meno Ashton, dunque, e vedremo che in qualche modo riusciremo a migliorare le difficili condizioni in cui ci troviamo e a garantire una chance per il futuro.


  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, this has been a very interesting and good debate on a very important subject. There was talk earlier about a ping-pong game going on. That ping-pong game is probably between the European Parliament and two Member States, so please do not use the Commission as a ball.

We are trying to have a coordinated, responsible and coherent response to everything relating to migration and borders because it all goes together. We cannot have a visa policy if we do not have border control. We cannot have credible protection of people who ask for asylum if we do not have a common asylum policy in the European Union. We cannot have legal migration that works if we do not also work with integration and we cannot fight irregular migration if we do not have a proper and decent return and readmission policy. So, in order to have all this together, we need a clear framework and we need a European framework.

The Commission has therefore presented this communication. With all respect to the hard-working people in the Commission, I will reveal a secret to you. We cannot produce a communication like this in two days. It is not possible. It has been planned for a long time. This is not a response to one or two Presidents or Prime Ministers – this is something that we have been planning for a long time, and it is all there.

Those with whom we have been working together on a daily basis will know that since day one I have been working with them and the Council to achieve a joint common European asylum system. It is hard work, it is difficult and we are working very slowly, but we are making some progress. We are working together on legal migration, we are trying to reinforce Frontex, and I have been promising you a paper on integration since my hearing last February and, already last year, we proposed better governance of Schengen. This is not a response to one or two Prime Ministers calling for something. It is something well thought out and it is something that will lead to further legislation and proposals in the light of the European Council meeting in June, which will have as a theme – also planned for a long time – migration issues.

Of course, the situation in Northern Africa and in the Mediterranean accelerates the need for us in Europe to have our house in order. Is that a reason to reinstall internal border control? No, of course not. Is there a reason for European action? Yes, there is. We have about 25 000 Tunisians coming to Europe. We have discussed this on many occasions here in the plenary. Of course, every individual comes for a reason, namely that he – because it is very often a he – has no work in Tunisia. I feel very strongly about every individual’s fate here, but not all of them can come to Europe. It is much better – and that is why we are working with the Tunisian authorities and Italy in order to see how we can support Italy to create jobs and growth – for these people to find a future in Tunisia, because they are not refugees.

However, there are refugees coming, and increasingly more so now. This week a lot of people have come from Libya – third country nationals, even Libyans – and that might increase. These people are clearly a reason for European action and solidarity. The Commission has invited all Member States to a conference on 12 May in order to discuss relocation and a prolongation of the Malta project in order to assist Malta with the thousands of people who have been going there. But we will also have the UNHCR there, so we will try to ask Member States to take increased responsibility for the refugees running away from the increasing violence in Libya who are stranded in Tunisia and at the border.

Turning to Schengen, I agree with you – or most of you – who have said that Schengen is a fantastic achievement. The fact that we can travel from Finland to Malta, from Portugal to Estonia, without ever showing a passport is a wonderful symbol of European integration. I want to protect this and further promote it. I am happy that I can count on your support in this.

However, the system is not perfect. We knew long before all this started that there were some weaknesses in the systems. Evaluation has not worked, because Member States are evaluating each other and that is not a good thing. We need a European mechanism with the involvement of the European Parliament. I presented this in November last year and I remember that I got quite a lot of support from this plenary to do this.

We need to have tools to help the Member States perform better in protecting EU external borders. We need to strengthen monitoring and we need more – not less – Europe. So, in order to assess this situation and to decide on the necessary means, we really need a European approach. The events of last week have confirmed this. The shortcomings should never automatically lead to the reintroduction of border control. There has to be an assessment of the shortcomings in all other ways possible, such as providing financial and operational support. Member States can also help each other. We are also working together with you on strengthening Frontex.

The point of departure is strengthening current legislation. I am convinced that the current rules can cater for most situations. Where there are differences in interpretation, the Commission should consult with Member States in order to clarify the rules. This can be done by issuing guidelines or recommendations.

There are particular circumstances where there might be a need to reintroduce border controls. That is already provided for today and it has been the case in a few situations – for example a major event such as a terrorist threat. There could be a major event where Member States, under very clear circumstances, need to do this. But we need to strengthen the European dimension of this and to prevent Member States from unilaterally taking action. That is what we are talking about.

We live in turbulent times. Many of the things that are happening are a reason for joy – in Egypt and Tunisia – but there are also a lot of concerns. We need to be calm in this situation. We need to try to handle it in the short term, but also in the long term. We need to strengthen our rules, not to undermine them. We need to strengthen the rules based on European law, on our values and on international commitments. We need a European leadership to stand up against simplistic solutions – and I have heard some of them here today – and populism. We need more Europe, not less.



  Enikő Győri, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, I would also like to thank you very much for this debate and the contributions I had from the honourable Members of this House.

First let me start with our clarification concerning the asylum package, as I received very concrete questions on that. As to the specific proposals on the table, the Council welcomes the start of the trilogues between the Parliament and the Council concerning the Qualification Directive. As to the Dublin Regulation and the Eurodac Regulation, important progress has been made at technical level.

Two main issues, however, remain outstanding which are inextricably linked to the political discussions. The first is the suspension of transfers under the Dublin Regulation and the second is access for law enforcement under the Eurodac Regulation. Many delegations in Council are of the opinion that suspending Dublin transfers to Member States that are subject to practical pressures would create a poor precedent and would undermine the Dublin Regulation. A large number of delegations have also expressed a strong wish to give law enforcement agencies access to the Eurodac database. Given these views in Council and considering our shared commitment to establishing a common European asylum system, a constructive debate is needed between all the institutions involved: the Council, Parliament and the Commission.

Finally, the Council awaits with interest the revised proposals of the Commission concerning the procedural directives and the Reception Conditions Directive, which are expected, if I am not mistaken, in early June. So, Ms Weber, since you suggested, with reference to the work of the Council, that we are questioning and undermining codecision and are trying to isolate Parliament, I hope that my clarification was enough for you. Of course we are very pleased to share all the information with you and we are very committed to making progress on these dossiers, which are, I think, of vital importance for all of us.

Let me continue in my mother tongue for some horizontal general concluding remarks.

Ahogy már a bevezetőmben is hangsúlyoztam, a tanácsbeli nagy vita még előttünk áll. Hat nappal ezelőtt látott napvilágot a Bizottságnak az előterjesztése. Mi rendkívüli bel- és igazságügyi tanácsi ülést hívtunk össze május 12-ére, ahol már egy orientációs vitát tudunk tartani. Abban bízunk, hogy ez a munka és a munkacsoporti vita könnyebb helyzetbe hozza majd az állam- és kormányfőket, hogy a legfontosabb politikai döntéseket a júniusi európai tanácson meg tudják majd hozni.

Ebben a pillanatban tehát én a magyar elnökség álláspontját tudom Önökkel megosztani. És itt hadd mondjam el Önöknek újra, nem először ebben a házban, hogy a mi alapvető filozófiánk az az erős Európa, egy olyan erős Európa, amelyik az embert helyezi a gondolkodásának a középpontjába.

Nekünk ez az alapvetésünk, minden politikánkat, minden lépésünket ez határozza meg. Ez alapján tudom Önöknek elmondani, hogy ebben a politikailag rendkívül érzékeny ügyben mi lesz a mi kiindulópontunk.

Mi nem leszünk partnerek abban, hogy bárki megpróbálja lebontani a schengeni rendszert és a szabad mozgást.

Ebben a házban a hozzászólások túlnyomó többsége is amellett érvelt, hogy ezt a közös vívmányt meg kell tartanunk. Hadd idézzem Iacolino olasz képviselő urat, aki „patrimonia della civilta europea”, „közös európai örökségünk”-nek nevezte, vagy Gál Kinga asszonyt, aki azt mondta, hogy a legkézzelfoghatóbb eredménye az uniós egységnek a szabad mozgás.

A magyar elnökség minden ezzel szembemenő törekvésnek ellen fog állni. De ez nem jelenti azt, és hadd csatlakozzak Malmström biztos asszonyhoz, hogy a rendszert ne kellene tökéletesíteni. Hónapok óta, évek óta tudjuk, hogy a 2011. év kihívásaihoz kell igazítani ezt a rendszert, és igenis ezt meg lehet tenni. Senki nem akarja, hogy szétessen az, amit nagyon sok év munkájával közösen hoztunk létre.

Tehát, ami a belső határok visszaállítását illeti, azt gondoljuk, hogy csak rendkívüli helyzetben, óriási kihívás esetén, meghatározott időre és közösségi döntéshozatallal lehet megtenni. Ezt elmondtam a bevezetőmben, Malmström asszony elmondta, Barroso biztos úr elmondta. Ismételten elmondom, hogy ez a mi kiindulópontunk.

Mi az, amiben még tudunk, és mi az, amiben nem tudunk partnerek lenni? Meg szeretnénk különböztetni azokat a menekülteket, akik valódi menekültek a nemzetközi jog alapján. Őket segítenünk kell, azért, hogy hűek lehessünk önmagunkhoz, a közös értékeinkhez.

Az illegális migrációval szemben pedig fel kell lépnünk. Az, hogy a közös határok, a külső határok védelme az egy közös ügy, ezt már említenem sem kell. Meg kell erősíteni a FRONTEX-et, rendelkezésére kell bocsátani azokat az eszközöket, amelyek ehhez szükségesek. Ezen dolgozunk Önökkel együttműködésben, remélve, hogy mielőbb döntésre tudunk jutni.

Schengen ügye nem csak azt jelenti, ami most a bizottsági közleményben szerepel, hanem napirenden van a schengeni övezet bővítése. A magyar elnökség egyértelműen elválasztja ezt a két ügyet. Senki ne akarja azt a két országot, amelyik rengeteg munkát, energiát és pénzt ölt abba, hogy méltóképpen felkészüljön és megfeleljen azoknak a nagy elvárásoknak, amelyeket a schengeni zónához való csatlakozás jelent, hogy ezt valaki negligálhassa, és tönkretegye, azzal, hogy most éppen nem megfelelő ehhez a hangulat.

A magyar elnökség alatt februárban már elismertük, hogy Románia készen volt a technikai standardok szempontjából, Bulgáriának volt még házi feladata. Örömmel jelenthetem, hogy május elején a Sch-eval Értékelő Csoport megállapította, hogy ezt a munkát Bulgária elvégezte.

Én abban bízom, hogy még a magyar elnökség alatt ki tudjuk azt a Tanácsban mondani, hogy a technikai felkészülés készen van. A két ország a schengeni technikai kritériumokat teljesíti. A politikai döntést, amikor arra a tagállamok készek, meg kell majd hozni. Erről mi az összes szereplővel folyamatosan egyeztettünk és egyeztetünk most is, és igyekszünk olyan megoldást találni, amely minden érintett fél, Románia és Bulgária, illetve a schengeni rendszer miatt aggódó tagállamoknak mindegyiknek elfogadható.

És végezetül egyben megjegyzés: azt hiszem Weber képviselő úr volt a Néppárt részéről, aki azt mondta, hogy nagyon kell arra vigyáznunk, hogy a bevándorlók, hogy az európai problémák, a munkaerő-utánpótlás kapcsán milyen politikát folytatunk. Ezzel mélyen egyetértek. Nem felejthetjük el, hogy vannak saját munkanélkülieink, de azt sem felejthetjük el, hogy egyébként egy elöregedő társadalom vagyunk Európában, és munkaerő-utánpótlási gondjaink is lesznek.

A magyar elnökség ezért tűzte zászlajára azt, hogy foglalkozzunk demográfiai kérdésekkel, hogy segítsük egymást abban, hogy lássuk, melyek azok a tagállamok, amelyek nagyon sikeresek a demográfiai politika terén, a családpolitika terén. Szeretnénk, ha a családok helyzete az Európai Unióban könnyebbé válna. Szeretnénk, ha több gyermek születhetne Európában, mert minden tagállam a maga eszközével ezt elősegíti, és ez a megoldás az elöregedő társadalom problémájára, és ezt jó lenne, ha nem migrációval kellene megoldanunk.


  President. − The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)


  Ivo Belet (PPE) , schriftelijk. – Voorzitter, collega's, Vrij verkeer van personen in de EU is, samen met de Euro, één van de absolute pijlers van het Europese project. Er is ook vandaag geen enkele reden waarom we dit in vraag zouden stellen. De reactie op de duizenden vluchtelingen die letterlijk aanspoelen in het Zuiden van Europa, kan onmogelijk zijn dat we onze binnengrenzen gaan sluiten, ook niet tijdelijk. De reactie kan alleen maar zijn dat we werk maken, op korte termijn, van een gezamenlijk Europees asiel- en immigratiebeleid. We kunnen en zullen ons er niet bij neerleggen dat door de komst van 30.000 vluchtelingen op de stranden van Italië of Griekenland, de pijlers van de EU in vraag worden gesteld. Uiteraard heeft Italië gelijk als het Europese solidariteit vraagt bij de aanpak van dit probleem. Daar ligt de oplossing. Maar het blokkeren van de binnengrenzen, ook tijdelijk, is een paniekreactie die de EU-leiders onwaardig is.


  John Bufton (EFD) , in writing. – The Commission’s response to any perceived challenge to the EU is to reach for more centralised powers. In the same way the financial crisis played perfectly into their hands and they leapt at the chance to justify economic governance rather than admit the euro’s failure, concerns about the sudden influx of migrants and the stresses it puts on countries is being used to call for the reinforcement of Schengen with increased centralised governance. MEPs are elected by the people, as the voice of the people. They represent the countries they are from. Yet when they reflect national interests here, it’s labelled ‘Populist’. Mr Barroso said it’s becoming fashionable to be Populist and wave the flag of xenophobia. Does he believe the very essence of being a country – having a domestic government, an independent economy and national borders – is inherently wrong? Why not have the guts to just scrap Parliament and take over Europe by force? Name calling, scaremongering and creeping bureaucracy is calculated and megalomaniac. But don’t think we are unaware. If we were, the so called ‘fashion’ for populism would not be developing. People are waking up to your intentions and the time will come that you are exposed.


  Giovanni Collino (PPE) , per iscritto. – Il problema dei flussi migratori che stiamo affrontando in Italia e in tutta Europa non può certo essere ridotto all'emergenza umanitaria, per quanto sia la situazione più urgente da affrontare. A noi parlamentari, che notoriamente siamo responsabili di esprimere la volontà politica dei nostri cittadini e quindi di rendere concrete le loro istanze e valutarne la sostenibilità nel lungo periodo, è richiesto di avere una visione d'insieme e saperla difendere nei confronti delle altre istituzioni. Nel caso delle politiche sull'immigrazione la visione d'insieme parte dall'analisi di una popolazione europea che sta invecchiando, anche in modo abbastanza disomogeneo da uno Stato all'altro dell'Unione. Un forte squilibrio si sta creando nel tempo fra tassi di natalità e tassi di mortalità e la nostra crescita è legata anche alla distribuzione della forza lavoro per fare in modo che il mercato disponga delle risorse necessarie a produrre tutto ciò che serve con continuità. È per questo che il Parlamento europeo dovrebbe farsi portavoce nei confronti delle altre istituzioni, compresi i governi degli Stati membri, di una gestione olistica del problema dell'immigrazione, con la persona al centro di una ripresa, non soltanto economica, che ha bisogno del bancario così come dell'idraulico, dell'ingegnere come del muratore.


  Anne Delvaux (PPE) , par écrit. – La décision de l'Italie de délivrer des permis de séjour temporaires à des milliers d'immigrés tunisiens arrivés sur son sol, suivie de la demande de la France de rétablir temporairement les contrôles aux frontières, a remis en cause un des éléments les plus tangibles de la construction européenne: l'espace Schengen.

Les propositions de la Commission dans sa communication du 4 mai, prévoyant notamment une extension des circonstances "exceptionnelles" qui permettraient le rétablissement des contrôles aux frontières intérieures, me laissent pour ainsi dire perplexe. Nous n'allons quand même pas remettre en cause une des plus belles réalisations de l'Europe par la volonté de deux présidents!

L'immigration est un défi qui nécessite une réponse européenne, je plaide donc pour une politique migratoire commune. Il est temps de prendre ce dossier à bras le corps. J'espère que lors du sommet européen de juin, où ce thème sera abordé, les sentiments populistes ne pollueront pas l'atmosphère.


  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D) , písomne. – Dovoľte mi vyjadriť sklamanie z toho, že Komisia celú problematiku migrácie a azylu zužuje na problémy v Stredomorí a Schengen. Situácia síce je kritická. Od Komisie sa už dlho očakáva ambiciózna stratégia. Nie protieurópsky plán na obnovu národných hraníc. Komisárka Malmströmová správne zdôrazňuje, že voľný pohyb osôb cez európske hranice je obrovským úspechom, o ktorý sa nesmieme pripraviť. No v tomto zmysle pôsobí nepochopiteľne návrh Komisie na riadenie imigračných tokov. Konkrétne časť, ktorá umožňuje zavedenie hraničných kontrol v rámci Únie, hoci len výnimočné a dočasné. Pozitívom je to, že o takomto opatrení nemôže rozhodnúť štát, ale iba Únia. Napriek tomu považujem túto klauzulu za spiatočnícku a zbytočne ustupujúcu populistickým tlakom francúzskeho a talianskeho premiéra. V hre totiž nie je niečo bezvýznamné, ale jedna zo základných zásad EÚ, sloboda pohybu. Nie som si istá, či by sme ju mali obetovať momentálnym problémom so zvládaním migračných tlakov z Afriky. Myslím si, že úlohou Únie by mal byť plán, ako migračné tlaky zo Stredozemia rozdeliť medzi členské štáty, ako efektívne zvládnuť integráciu imigrantov. Na máj a jún Komisia avizovala prijatie viacerých dokumentov, ktoré súvisia s migráciou. Dovoľte mi vyjadriť nádej, že Komisia si pri ich formulovaní zachová nadhľad a chladnú hlavu.


  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE) , per iscritto. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'attuale crisi politica nella regione nord-africana e i conseguenti fenomeni migratori hanno confermato la necessità di un approccio europeo forte in materia di immigrazione e asilo. L'immigrazione è una sfida europea che richiede non solo una risposta rapida e concreta, ma anche una strategia comune a lungo termine. Forse dimentichiamo che secondo le ultime stime dell'Onu, sono 12.360 i migranti partiti dalla Libia e arrivati in Italia e a Malta dallo scorso marzo, ma già 700.000 persone hanno abbandonato la Libia e la Tunisia con l'obiettivo di attraversare il Mediterraneo. Senza un piano congiunto per l'accoglienza e il controllo dei confini rischiamo di assistere a un'immigrazione incontrollabile e disordinata con pesanti ricadute su tutta l'Europa. Saranno importanti in tal senso un rafforzamento di Frontex, una maggiore solidarietà fra gli Stati membri e accordi di partenariato per un maggiore controllo delle frontiere e il rimpatrio degli immigrati irregolari. Per quanto riguarda infine eventuali modifiche del sistema di Schengen, una simile decisione dovrebbe essere presa a livello europeo e non lasciata nelle mani di un singolo Paese. Occorre infatti evitare che gli Stati maggiormente esposti a forti pressioni migratorie corrano il rischio di trovarsi ancora più isolati.


  Kinga Göncz (S&D) , írásban. – Európa számára ma az egyik legfontosabb kihívás, hogyan reagál a déli határain kibontakozott forradalmakra. Ennek a térségnek a demokratizálódása az EU elemi érdeke, az innen induló menekülthullámra az Uniónak olyan választ kell találnia, amely megfelel a humanitárius elveknek, az emberi jogoknak. Szolidaritásra van szükség a tagállamok között, de leginkább az Európába érkező menekültek iránt. Ennek fontosságát mi magyarok érthetjük meg igazán, hiszen az 1956-os forradalom után honfitársaink százezreit fogadták be a világ sok országába.

A migrációs nyomásra nem a belső határellenőrzés visszaállítása a válasz, hanem a megkezdődött tárgyalások felgyorsítása a menekültügyi csomag, a közös európai migrációs politika és a schengeni értékelési rendszer mielőbbi elfogadása érdekében.

A határellenőrzés visszaállítása, ha átmeneti is, az EU egyik szimbolikus vívmányát kezdi ki, akadályt állítva a polgárok szabad mozgásának útjába. Olyan vívmány ez, amit az európai polgárok nagyra értékelnek, s ami egyben az egyik garanciája a közös gazdasági térség érvényesülésének, sikerességének is. A fölmerülő problémákra együtt kell választ találnunk, nem szabad engedni a látszatmegoldást kínáló populista és különutas hangoknak.


  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE) , na piśmie. – Dyskutując o wzmacnianiu i usprawnianiu zarządzania strefą Schengen, musimy jednocześnie zastanowić się nad nową polityką migracyjną Unii Europejskiej nie tylko w kontekście sytuacji w Afryce Północnej, ale również ewentualnych wydarzeń u naszych wschodnich sąsiadów. Trudno bowiem przewidzieć, co może wydarzyć się w krajach postsowieckich w przyszłości. Musimy również wziąć pod uwagę wyzwania stojące przed Europą. Społeczeństwo UE starzeje się i dlatego też napływu migrantów nie należy postrzegać tylko jako zagrożenie dla europejskich rynków pracy. Migranci często przyczyniają się do rozwoju ekonomicznego kraju, do którego przyjeżdżają.

Tak było po przyjęciu do UE nowych państw członkowskich. Niemcy, obawiając się napływu migrantów, stosowali okresy przejściowe i dopiero teraz otworzyli swoje granice dla pracowników z Polski. Anglicy zdecydowali się na otwarcie swojego rynku pracy od razu. Teraz liczą korzyści, jakie przyniosło im zatrudnienie około 2 milionów młodych, sprawnych i energicznych Polaków. Często powtarza się też, że powinniśmy akceptować migracje o charakterze politycznym, natomiast zamykać Europę dla migracji ekonomicznych. Moim zdaniem podział ten nie ma większego sensu, ponieważ często trudno jest rozróżnić te dwa typy migracji. Jak zakwalifikować protesty klasy średniej w krajach arabskich? Miały one bowiem zarówno podłoże polityczne, jak i ekonomiczne. Nie ulegajmy więc wyimaginowanym obawom, myślmy o szansach dla naszego rozwoju.


  Edward Scicluna (S&D) , in writing. – The aggressive positions taken by the French and Italian political leaders with regard to the Ventimiglia incident have nothing to do with the Schengen agreement, but are rather an exercise to impress their own citizens. The 20 000 or so migrants were, in the main, economic migrants seeking jobs and better economic opportunities. Rather than suffer a brain-drain as its best and brightest people seek economic migration, what Tunisia requires is EU financial assistance for economic development programmes promoting work for the young and the unemployed. However, this should not distract us from dealing with the real problem of how best to cope with the migration of genuine asylum seekers from North Africa, who are or will be fleeing from war-torn countries. For this we do not need the return of national border controls. The principles of the EU include freedom of movement and solidarity between Member States, and we should not take retrograde steps in that regard. We have provision in the treaties for establishing a single EU asylum system and proper burden-sharing between Member States. Instead of stoking up right-wing populism, we should be working as Europeans to put the necessary legislation in place.


  Debora Serracchiani (S&D) , per iscritto. – Gli arrivi di flussi immigratori a Lampedusa di quest'ultimi giorni evidenziano che l'emergenza immigrazione è un tema di attualità ancora vivo e che richiede azioni immediate. È evidente che occorre un miglioramento della governance nello spazio Schengen così come stabilito dalla Comunicazione della Commissione del 4 maggio scorso.

A tal fine sono necessarii un rafforzamento dei meccanismi di solidarietà nella ridistribuzione dei richiedenti asilo, una mobilità organizzata e nuove partnership con i Paesi terzi. La revisione dei meccanismi di applicazione dell'acquis di Schengen non deve essere vista come scusa per limitare a piacere il diritto alla libera circolazione, semmai come stimolo per nuove opportunità.

Mi auguro che molto presto ci siano proposte concrete per combattere i pregiudizi e le discriminazioni, per contrastare l'illegalità, per promuovere i diritti umani e la dignità della persona, nonché la civile convivenza. Governare in modo efficace l'immigrazione e favorire una civile convivenza deve essere l'impegno quotidiano di una buona politica che abbia l'ambizione di promuovere lo sviluppo e la sicurezza. Il rinvio di flussi massicci verso i Paesi di origine non aiuta a mantenere le distanze tra europei ed immigrati. Il rischio, semmai, è di aumentare l'irregolarità, l'insicurezza e i costi economici.


  Monika Smolková (S&D) , písomne. – Masové presuny obyvateľov severnej Afriky sa dali predvídať už pred niekoľkými mesiacmi a Francúzsko a Taliansko malo spolu s Komisiou reagovať okamžite. Dnešné ich vyjadrenia a konanie, keď polícia jedného štátu neakceptuje dokument iného vyvolávajú nielen údiv. Požiadavky chrániť svoje záujmy na vnútornej hranici kvôli 25 tisícom utečencov sú bezprecedentné a populistické a sú namierené voči všetkému, čo Schengen predstavuje. 22. 12.2007 som na Slovensko-Maďarskej hranici pomáhala píliť hraničnú závoru. Vidiac vtedajšie nadšenie ľudí, dnešné posilňovanie vnútorných hraníc by úplne znegovalo myšlienku Schengenu. Prioritou EÚ i naďalej musí ostať sloboda, voľný pohyb osôb a tovaru a solidarita s každým, kto ju potrebuje. Som proti vnútorným hraniciam, preto očakávam posilnenie riadiacich mechanizmov Schengenu tak, aby sa zabránilo populistickým tendenciám niektorých štátov, aby sa zabránilo radikalizácíi, neznášanlivosti a upevnil sa jeden z najväčších výdobytkov novodobej Európy - Schengen.


  Nuno Teixeira (PPE) , por escrito. – Os acontecimentos que assolam a ilha de Lampedusa, decorrentes das revoluções populares do Norte de África, criaram uma situação de crise humanitária, com a chegada de mais de 20 mil imigrantes tunisinos, entre Janeiro e Abril. O governo italiano não tem conseguido dar resposta aos inúmeros pedidos de asilo e à chegada abrupta de milhares de migrantes clandestinos. A Convenção de Schengen, assinada em 1985, e hoje incorporada no Tratado da UE, é considerada uma das expressões máximas da integração europeia. Por este motivo, é importante não esquecer os seus princípios base, que, ao serem corrompidos, comprometem a eficácia do espaço Schengen. A aplicação correcta dos acordos de Schengen torna-se imperativa, através do espírito de solidariedade, informação recíproca e coordenação. A crise humanitária a que hoje assistimos urge ser solucionada, mas pelos meios legais que as regras de Schengen estabelecem. A diferenciação entre as pessoas que têm direito à protecção internacional, como os refugiados, e entre os migrantes económicos é da maior importância, para se proteger quem realmente necessita de protecção. Por outro lado, deve evitar-se a todo o custo a violação unilateral da Convenção, uma vez que põe em causa a construção de um espaço europeu sem fronteiras, que teve início em 1985.


  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D) , schriftelijk. – De voorstellen die de Commissie woensdag bekendmaakte om het asiel- en migratiebeleid aan te scherpen bevatten één stommiteit en enkele goede aanzetten. De verwijzing naar grenscontroles aan de binnengrenzen getuigt meer van politiek opportunisme dan van leiderschap en inzicht. Maar goed, deze toegeving aan Frankrijk en Italië is gelukkig slechts symbolisch. Daarnaast ben ik blij dat de Commissie in haar voorstellen toont dat ook zij beseft dat gedegen oplossingen voor een efficiënter asiel- en migratiebeleid niet onder de kerktoren moeten worden gezocht, maar dat een en ander meer Europese samenwerking vereist.

Er zijn enorme verschillen tussen de lidstaten in de verwerking van asielaanvragen en de uitkomst van deze procedures. Een ééngemaakt Europees asielsysteem is dus nodig, zodat asielzoekers zien dat Europa kan helpen waar nodig, maar geen vrijkaart geeft aan avonturiers. Dit moeten we koppelen aan het ontwikkelen van zinvolle partnerschappen tussen Europa en de buurlanden om groei en ontwikkeling te ondersteunen. Ik hoop dat de Commissie zich niet meer als speelbal laat gebruiken in de binnenlandse profilering van enkele politici. Waar we nood aan hebben, zijn gedegen Europese oplossingen voor een Europees probleem. Deze voorstellen zijn een goede basis, maar voor mij mag het best nog wat meer zijn.


  Winkler, Iuliu (PPE) , în scris. – Sub loviturile crizei economice și financiare, precum și ale consecințelor primăverii arabe cu profunde implicații în nevoile de a controla fluxurile de emigranți și accesul la resursele de petrol, UE pare a fi din ce în ce mai divizată, pe cale să abandoneze una dintre cele mai valoroase realizări ale sale - libera circulație în spațiul Schengen. Restricționarea libertății de circulație a cetățenilor europeni prin introducerea unor noi limitări, chiar și temporare, și impunerea pentru România și Bulgaria a unor criterii suplimentare celor din Tratatul de la Schengen vor duce la erodarea unității europene. Cred într-o Europă puternică și solidară și mă număr printre susținătorii viziunii Președinției ungare a UE exprimate prin sloganul "Strong Europe". Asistând, însă, la ultimele evoluții legate de viitorul spațiului Schengen, constat că ne aflăm pe o cale greșită. În momente critice ca și cele pe care le traversăm, leadership-ul european ar trebui să dea dovadă de mai multă viziune și solidaritate, să fie preocupat de blocarea renașterii populismului deșănțat și a protecționismului intern în Europa. Acestea vor avea urmări dramatice, ușor de prevăzut. Nu restricțiile și interdicțiile vor duce la consolidarea și stabilitatea spațiului Schengen!


  Anna Záborská (PPE), písomne. – Aj z diskusie v pléne Európskeho parlamentu vyplynulo, že sloboda pohybu, ktorú Schengen umožňuje, je jedným z kľúčových pilierov európskej spolupráce a je treba urobiť všetko pre to, aby zostala zachovaná. Zároveň však vidíme, že Európa nebola pripravená na nárast počtu migrantov z Tuniska a Lýbie. Tým, že Taliansko dalo týmto migrantom cestovné doklady, umožnilo im voľný pohyb v rámci schengenského režimu. Donútilo tak aj ďalšie štáty, predovšetkým Francúzsko a Nemecko, aby začali intenzívne hľadať riešenie. Schengen umožňuje, aby štáty v mimoriadnom prípade zaviedli náhodné hraničné kontroly cestujúcich a napríklad Dánsko už túto možnosť využilo. Nemyslím si, že riešením je jednotná európska migračná a azylová politika, táto otázka je v kompetencii členských štátov. V tejto chvíli by hraničné štáty Schengenu mali priznať svoju zodpovednosť za ochranu spoločnej hranice a prijať opatrenia na rýchle vrátenie ekonomických migrantov späť do krajiny pôvodu.

Jogi nyilatkozat - Adatvédelmi szabályzat