Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-20-Speech-4-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010920.6.4-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the proposal for a Council directive on procedures for granting refugee status, which, as defined in the Treaty, is supposed to be binding on the Member States as regards the outcome to be achieved, whilst leaving it to the national authorities to decide what procedures and means to employ, is in fact an extremely nit-picking document. For example, it goes into inordinate length and detail on the definition of an unfounded application for asylum, in Article 28, of a safe third country, in Article 22 and in Annex I, and of a safe country of origin, in Annex II. As if the Member States were babes in arms and as if their officials had never processed a single application for asylum in their lives. But what is most extraordinary of all is that this proposal manages to be both nit-picking and lax at the same time. Because there are not many provisions motivated by the concern to grant so-called high-level guarantees to asylum seekers that are not also – and we must not overlook this point – low-level guarantees for the citizens of Member States. Let me quote just one example amongst many, Article 25, which stipulates that if the applicant's declarations are not proven but appear simply to be probable, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. This may seem to be a generous gesture in principle and indeed it is, but in the context of the troubled times in which we find ourselves today it fails to take account of other interests at stake, and above all those of the European public.
That is why we believe that the text before us today should just be the first part of the final directive. Following this first part, which is devoted to the protection of asylum-seekers, a second part needs to be written, which will be devoted to the protection of the European public, who at best will foot the bill for this policy and at worst will be the victims of it. I say that because we should not forget that at least three-quarters of applications for asylum submitted nowadays ultimately turn out to be unfounded. And please do not tell us, Commissioner, that those texts will follow later. They should be presented to us at the same time so that we can take an overall view.
Having said that, I can scarcely bring myself to mention the amendments proposed in the report from the relevant committee of the European Parliament. I will come back to those in my explanation of vote. Let me just say at this stage that they are so rash that in the end the rapporteur himself ended up resigning and having to be replaced in fairly disastrous circumstances. All these texts, both the directive and the amendments, remind us, against the background of our recent debates on security, that it is extremely unhealthy in times like these to authorise 400 000 to 500 000 asylum-seekers a year to enter our territory, given that the majority will ultimately be turned down, but as they are not expelled, will remain on a semi-clandestine basis. This floating, unchecked population is growing every year and adding to other sources of clandestine immigration.
We believe, Madam President, having seen the documents before us today, that the European institutions are still a long way from giving priority to the public’s safety."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples