Strasbourg, 27/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - During the annual debate in Parliament on the European area of freedom, security and justice on 27 September, the Chairman of the EP's civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE, France) gave his firm backing to the Finnish Presidency's proposal to use the “passerelle” or “bridging” clause provided for in Article 42 of the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, allowing the communitisation of policies deriving from the third (intergovernmental) pillar, something which it has not been possible to do so far for the “so sensitive” political and legal cooperation in criminal matters; at the time, not deadline was set, in the belief that all that was needed was the conjunction of “political conditions and mutual confidence”, he said, asking if, fourteen years after Maastricht, there was the political will. Mr Cavada, who took part in the informal JHA Council in Tampere (see EUROPE 9271 and 9272), addressing those who claim it would be better to wait for the European Constitutional issue to be resolved, stressed, “Can we afford to wait for the end of this process which could last three or four more years?” He acknowledged that the use of bridging clause “would require ratification by national parliaments”, but felt that any potential difficulties could be overcome through constructive dialogue with them and he announced “a large inter-parliamentary meeting, at which we hope to persuade them” for 3 and 4 October. The arguments in favour of communitisation are there, he said, indicating that the removal of the veto on this issue would permit a reduction in the democratic deficit. “Is it possible sincerely to sustain the argument that the control of national parliaments (in this area) is enough?” he asked, adding “what happens if this control is lacking?” (“The re-negotiation of the agreement with the United States on the transfer of air passenger data would take place outside all democratic control,” he gave as an example: see EUROPE 9273). Strengthening the rule of law, under which any criminal action must be brought before a judge - the Court of Justice in Luxemburg, in the EU's case. Mr Cavada pointed out that Articles 67 of the EC Treaty and 35 of the EU Treaty introduced several restrictions to the competence of the Court (Council President, Finnish Interior Minister Kari Rajamäki announced in plenary session that next Friday a council working group would, for the first time, debate the areas of responsibility of the Court in this area). Increasing the efficiency of decision-making, because the requirement for unanimity was creating paralysis just at the moment that threats to security were increasing.
Last week in Tampere, there had been a fair bit of talk about “cycling” and, talking about the bridging clause, Commissioner Frattini said that, so as not to fall, a cyclist had to pedal, said Mr Ramajäki during the debate. While some may say that if a cyclist stops, all he: /she has to do is put one foot on the ground to remain upright, “if the bike chain comes off, it is difficult to get started again without doing something about that,” he added in support of the Finnish proposal. Franco Frattini addressed the Member States for which the use of the bridging clause would “pre-empt the debate on re-launching the constitutional process”. “We believe that this is not the case. We will be of course among the first to welcome a positive outcome of the exploration the future German Presidency intends carrying out in 2007. … Nevertheless, we have to prepare ourselves to the situation where the passerelle may represent the unique way to address the urgent need that all of us share. I agree that we need the constitution but if we wait then it is possible to be paralysed. … Europe is like a bicycle, either it goes ahead or it falls to the ground. And it was only by going ahead faster than others that my compatriot Bettini won the World Championship of cycling a few days ago. We have therefore to continue this very important political discussion, building upon the common goodwill showed by Member States in Tampere,” Mr Frattini said.
Kari Rajamäki outlines Finnish priorities for area of freedom, security and justice
Mr Rajamäki urged a revival of the “Tampere spirit” that followed the 1999 European Council, and spoke of series of priorities held by the Finnish Presidency, including the creation of a European fundamental rights agency: it was hoped, he said, that it would be up and running by the start of 2007 and clarification was awaited on the positions of Member States on certain points, such as areas of responsibility (see EUROPE 9266 on the vote on the Kinga Gal report in the EP civil liberties committee on this issue). “I expect member States to be flexible, “he said. On lifting internal EU border controls (see EUROPE 9271 on the enlargement of the Schengen area to the new Member States, planned in principle for October 2007), Mr Rajamäki hoped for progress at the next JHA Council in Luxemburg on 5-6 October. He said it was hoped to enlarge the area as quickly as possible “without conceding anything on security inside the area,” he said, anticipating that December's European Council would set “schedule milestones for lifting border controls”. He also hoped that progress would be made on the long-blocked text on combating racism and xenophobia, with Member States' reservations having been raised. In Tampere, migration and asylum were discussed “in constructive spirit”, said Mr Rajamäki in conclusion. He emphasised that those Member States bearing the brunt of the influx of illegal immigrants had to receive the support they needed, but they had to abide by the rules decided on together and assume their responsibilities.
Franco Frattini puts emphasis on immigration
The strategic goal was striking the right balance between improving security and promoting fundamental rights, said Franco Frattini right at the start of his speech. Combating terrorism and the management of the influx of immigrants were the main priorities (Monica Frassoni, Greens/EFA deputy leader, criticised his starting his speech by talking about terrorism). Mr Frattini said he was convinced that any new security measure, especially in relation to air transport, must not bring about a disproportionate reaction which would hand a victory to terrorism”. Concentrating on migration, he principally: - highlighted the setting up of a Commissioners' Group on Migration Issues (see EUROPE 9267) and noted that, while the focus was clearly on Africa, account had to be taken of migratory movements from other regions “particularly from the Eastern neighbours”; - pointed out that additional aid had been provided to the EU countries most concerned, Spain, Italy and Malta (see EUROPE 9268), and to Mauritania; - hoped that the Parliament would agree to increase funding (€21 million) for Frontex in 2007; - spoke of operational measures which he proposed for summer 2007 for the management of the southern external border (operational command centre in the relevant regions to coordinate a Mediterranean coastal patrol network, exploring the establishment of a European surveillance system, pooling assets, with equipment made available by all Member States to help a country in need, possibility of setting up teams of asylum experts); - emphasised that migration form part of EU external policies (particularly development); - called for the reinforcement of efforts to combat illegal working (“… we are currently reflecting at the elaboration of a legislative instrument harmonising penal sanctions against employers of illegally staying migrants”), while implementing the policy plan on legal migration, which would create a “virtuous circle”; - once again spoke of the need for Europe to become “a real pole of attraction for highly skilled immigrants”, just like the United States, Canada and Australia. Studying measures to avoid a brain drain from countries of origin, Mr Frattini spoke of the idea of proposing “a directive on the conditions of admission to the EU for highly skilled workers - including the possibility of an EU green card”. In conclusion, the Commissioner hoped that the JHA Council in October, then the Lahti Summit on 20 October would endorse “this global EU strategy on immigration”.
MEPs divided
The MEPs who spoke during the debate were not all convinced by these statements. Six years ago, after Tampere, exactly the same things were said, but there was no movement because these issues touched on Member States' sovereignty, complained Martin Schulz, leader of the Socialist group. ALDE group leader Graham Watson, who chaired the Parliamentary civil liberties committee at the time, spoke of a situation similar to Beckett's “Waiting for Godot”, with Member States locked in their medievil residences with the “drawbridges constantly up”, instead of lowering the “bridges”. Monica Frassoni said that she did not particularly like Mr Frattini to speak about solidarity only when it was to do with helping Member States fend off migrants driven by despair. She also spoke of “qualified people, history teachers, electricians” who were unable in the EU to find work of an appropriate standard. Let us build an anonymous monument to the migrants who have lost their lives trying to reach our shores, argued Guido Catania (GUE, Italy), recalling the deaths of 400 people ten years ago “off Palo Alto, between Malta and Sicily”.
Romano la Russa (UEN, Italy), on the other hand, stressed that a credible policy to combat illegal immigration could not be other than severe, and “there could not be a European policy authorising the mass legalisation” of immigrants. Jean-Marie Le Pen (Front National, France) added that the arrival of illegal immigrants into France and Italy in 2005 had created an “in-draught”, “the disastrous 1995 Schengen Convention should be repealed”. At the same time, Mr Le Pen felt that Nicolas Sarkozy, “who has missed eight EU interior ministers' Councils, is in no position to criticise Spain”.