Brussels, 18/06/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 18 June, MEPs adopted at first reading and by quite a large majority, the proposal for a “return” directive - highly criticised by the Left and by many NGOs - intended to facilitate the expulsion of illegal immigrants from the EU. The text, which was approved by 367 votes to 206 and 109 abstentions, takes up word for word the compromise reached by the 27 member states with the Parliament rapporteur, Manfred Weber (EPP-ED, Germany) (EUROPE 9676). The compromise was endorsed thanks to the support of the Christian Democrats of the EPP-ED, ALDE Liberals, eurosceptics and EU sovereignists, as well as part of the Socialists, especially German, Spanish and British. Amendments put forward by the Left (PES, GUE/NGL and Greens/EFA) were systematically rejected with differences of over 100 votes. This is the first time that the European Parliament has had to examine a text in codecision with member states on a proposal related to immigration. The Slovenian EU Presidency had warned that voting on the slightest change to the negotiated compromise could mean failure of the text, as member states are not ready to renegotiate it. It should be noted that three countries are not under an obligation to apply the rules adopted as they are not part of the Schengen Area: - the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark. Provisions relating to the directive will take effect in 2010.
Tense atmosphere. Nearly 400 people demonstrated the day preceding the vote in front of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, seeking to reverse the trend. Until just a few minutes before the vote, many left-wing deputies and associations sought to mobilise the representatives for whom they vote against the directive which they described as a “disgrace” for Europe. In an article published by Le Monde dated 18 June, French Socialists Jacques Delors, former President of the European Commission, and Michel Rocard, MEP, said that the directive was “not acceptable”. “Would it not be wiser for MEPs to abstain from adopting this proposal in its present state?”, the two men asked, going as far as to call on Jacques Barrot, Immigration Commissioner, to go back to the drawing board.
Main points adopted. The text raises the issue of the “return” of any person staying illegally in the EU, either towards his/her country of origin or to the country of transit with which agreements have been sealed, or towards another country to which that person returns of his/her own free will. Illegal immigrants are, as a priority, to be given 7-30 days in which to make a “voluntary return”, which can be lengthened by an appropriate amount of time depending on the circumstances (children at school, other family and social connections). Retention is decided if there is the risk of flight or if the illegal immigrant refuses to be expelled. It is foreseen that NGOs will have right of access to retention centres, right of appeal against expulsion decisions and right of free legal assistance (EUROPE 9675). The text sets the time during which illegal immigrants can be held at six months at most. This, however, can be extended by twelve months, making 18 months in total, if the return is complicated by “lack of cooperation” on the part of the person concerned or by the difficulty of obtaining a consular “laissez-passer” by the country of origin. After 18 months, if it appears that expulsion is not possible, the illegal immigrant will be released. At the present time, retention time is unlimited in seven European countries (Demark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Sweden). In France and Cyprus, it is 32 days, in Greece 3 months, in Luxembourg 3 months, in Austria 10 months, in Poland one year and already 18 months in Germany. Another highly controversial provision of the draft directive states: all immigrants will be punished by having an EU entry ban of up to five years imposed on them, although this can be longer for public law and order reasons. The directive will apply to unaccompanied minors.
First reactions. After the vote, the rapporteur, Manfred Weber, welcomed the fact that “reason had won the day” while stressing that it was not possible to agree with member sates on stricter standards. Commissioner Barrot said “this text offers certain common guarantees in the implementation of measures for expulsion while allowing member states to maintain and set up more protective schemes”. Also, this directive will now offer a legal base likely to allow effective legal control, he added, saying that in particular he had the intention to personally ensure full respect of human rights and children's rights. For most of the Socialist camp, this vote in favour is difficult to swallow. “The text does indeed propose a few small steps forward but these are negated by the large number of exemptions”, deplored Martine Roure (PES, France). “We had hoped that all humanists beyond the parties would agree to our amendments”, she said woefully, saying that the Council had compelled the Parliament to adopt this text in assent procedure, thus depriving it of the possibility of a second reading. (B.C./transl.jl)