Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.6.2-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the draft directive on displaced persons represents a new step towards European asylum policy. But we are a long way off the ultimate goal, not least because the Council has hitherto appeared unable to reach decisions on Commission proposals. As far as I am aware, there is still no agreement on the directive on family reunification within the Council’s working party. The Council will perhaps be able to deal with this temporary protection directive more promptly, as it is not being ‘hindered’ by a codecision procedure in this case. It is, however, questionable how much further problems have to escalate before the Council can rise above the mutual differences and can adopt a truly European approach. Despite this, I should like to identify two positive aspects today.
First of all, the drive with which the Commission acquits itself of its task as legislator in the European Union and the care it applies to keeping the balance between the national interests and the ultimate goal of Tampere are quite remarkable. Commissioner Vitorino deserves every support for his excellent helmsmanship in this matter.
Secondly, the content of the directive itself is balanced and therefore by and large acceptable. First and foremost, it is stated that the rights and duties of displaced persons should as far as possible approximate to those of people with a different residence status. In addition, further to its debate, the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has called for more light to be shed on the relationship between the displaced persons status and the regular asylum procedure. They should not be mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, the use of the temporary protection instrument is merely a contingency measure which should not undermine the individual right to asylum.
Furthermore, I am delighted that it has been clearly laid down that all Member States have to contribute their proportionate share to the actual reception of displaced persons. I thank Mr Wiebenga for amending the directive to that effect. However, I also share Mrs Terrón’s and Mrs Buitenweg’s severe criticism of the compromise, which is very disappointing indeed and should not really call itself a compromise, as far as the definition of “the family” is concerned. We have not heard the last of this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples