Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-14-Speech-3-342"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-06-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Asylum procedures2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000614.13.3-342"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-06-14-Speech-3-3432
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan-Kees Wiebenga2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (1999-07-20--2001-10-07)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees and delegations for relations with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (1999-12-09--2001-10-07)3 vice-president; European Parliament (1999-07-20--2001-10-07)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2001-10-07)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2001-10-07)3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2001-10-07)3 vice-president; Parliament's Bureau (1999-07-20--2001-10-07)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-09-13--2001-10-07)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we from the Liberal group will deeply miss Mr Schulz’s pure and crystal-clear democratic input in this area of policy. It is unfortunate, but we wish you all the best in your new job. This was the fun part of what I wanted to say. What shape is the European asylum policy in? That is hard to say, as there is not really a European asylum policy to speak of. We in this Parliament, the delegates as well as their predecessors, have for years been pushing in the right direction. So far, the European Commission, that is to say the present Commissioner’s predecessor, failed to come up with the goods but, prior to the Treaty of Amsterdam, had little say in the matter anyway. The previous European Commission may have had the will, but did not have any power. The bottleneck, as we quite often noticed, was located within the Council of Ministers. Most governments showed willing too, but they were subject to the rule of unanimity. Then there was the Tampere Summit. Dozens of proposals were submitted there, also in this area of policy. Things were looking up, according to many journalists. They had, however, overlooked the fact that the crippling policy of decision-making on the basis of unanimity still applied. It is unlikely that a scoreboard will be able to unlock this paralysis within policy. All it will do is make it clear to the outside world which body and country are responsible for the paralysis within policy. What needs to happen now? All sorts of things need to happen. As far as we, the Liberal group, are concerned, both the European Commission’s working document and Mr Schmitt’s report, which we are discussing today, are a useful leg-up to the next phase and, in our opinion, and I would echo the opinions of previous speakers, Mr Schmitt has adopted a level-headed approach in his report. We will be voting in favour of the tenor of the report and we are backing it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph