Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-20-Speech-4-040"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Refugee status in Member States (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010920.6.4-040"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-20-Speech-4-0412
lpv:speaker	lp:Francesco Fiori2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; AGRI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Forza Italia (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; EPP-ED (1999-09-30--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Commissioner, we are being asked to express our views on a subject which in itself involves a very broad spectrum of activities. It is easy to talk about the right to asylum pure and simple, holding it up as a sacred principle, and it is all the more clearly sacred at this sensitive moment when the world is shaken by such dramatic events; solidarity and goodwill are the feelings that we all, in our bewilderment, feel we want to appeal to so that we can build new, better structures between people, worlds and cultures. It is also clear, however, that, right now, we must not deviate from the objective of achieving tangible situations and establishing practical prospects that are closely linked to reality. In the proposal for a directive, as Mr Schmitt has already mentioned, there are some – in our view – complex concepts that conflict with the direction we had embarked on in our work last year and open up certain political problems that, in our opinion, are quite serious. Is it right, for instance, to accept that a third country that is considered safe should always be so regardless of the tangible fact that links it to the asylum seeker? Or that a manifestly unfounded application should, even so, always give rise to a complicated, expensive verification procedure? It goes without saying that certainty on this is in the clear interests both of those who have serious grounds for seeking protection and of the host country itself. I do not want to go into the legal and philosophical concept of what constitutes being manifestly unfounded, but on matters which are now more sensitive than ever such as that addressed by the Watson report, we must show our determination to build without putting up obstacles, and to help without negative or even destructive effects on our social systems. Therefore, when we look at the wording on the extension of the right to asylum, the fast-track procedure and the appeals procedure, I think that, on careful analysis, my doubts will be widely shared."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph