Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-069"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.5.4-069"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I can essentially go along with what Pernille Frahm has just said, and we shall also support her amendment which, in spite of everything, does nonetheless mitigate this dreadful piece of legislation we are debating, albeit to no great legal effect, because this is a simple consultation procedure. I have two points to make. First of all, I have some questions for the Commissioner. It is, of course, evident from Protocol No 5 to the Amsterdam Treaty on the position of Denmark, that Title IV of the Treaty does not apply to Denmark, but this is not apparent from the proposed regulation. I should like to see this matter clarified and would ask that the clarification be included in the proposal. Next, I should like to ask the Commissioner if this is to be viewed in connection with what is dealt with in Article 5 of the Protocol I mentioned, namely a decision to build upon the Schengen acquis. If so, there is a definite procedure for how Denmark is to be incorporated into the system. Is it this rule which is to be followed, or others? And finally: if it is this rule or other rules which are to be followed, what would be the consequences of a Danish accession? Is it the case that decisions by the EU authorities, including the European Court of Justice, are binding upon Denmark?
The second point is the fundamental and most important one. As Pernille Frahm rightly said, this proposal concerns an extension to Fortress Europe. It is an effective defence mechanism, and what is being put in place is a complete and consistent absence of legal rights for one large group of people, namely asylum seekers, and for a group of other foreigners without, moreover, there being the right to differentiate between them. There are no elementary rules concerning legal rights in connection with the registration procedure and in connection with the right to pass on this information held by the Member States and the Commission. I want to say that this is the most repressive system we have experienced in Europe in this century, at any rate in the perspective of the Nordic legal tradition, and we have had our share of repressive systems. And what is interesting and sinister is that it is wrapped up in phraseology which would have made the late propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, turn green with envy. Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind you that this total absence of legal rights is to be established by virtue of conditions in the Treaty which concern and proclaim an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and which guarantee freedom of movement. What, in fact, we are dealing with here is the very opposite and, to crown it all, Mr Pirker’s report also attaches importance – and this is the only real amendment proposed – to replacing the concept of a foreigner with that of a citizen of a third country. Is the reason for this that the concept of a foreigner has negative connotations? What the realities of the situation are is not so important. What is important is the packaging. You are welcome to it, is what I say."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples