Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.3.2-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am really sorry about this, because the debate is an interesting one which I believe demonstrates not only the complexity of the issue, but also its political dimension. It would be unreasonable to think that it is merely a question of settling technical problems in the context of a generalised consensus, and I believe that these difficulties also demonstrate the urgent need to reach a consensus, at European level, on a certain number of essential measures.
However, there is an enormous risk, because the people of Europe are waiting for some answers. They have confidence in Europe. They believe that this is a useful, perhaps even essential, dimension in the solving of such problems. If we do not succeed in finding answers for our people, I fear that there is a dangerous risk that they will take matters into their own hands, and I am also afraid – and I hope that we in this House share this feeling, at least most of us if not all – that Europe may not be able to remain a Europe of rights and freedoms, a Europe that is welcoming and open, and also, because this is what our fellow citizens are concerned about, a Europe that is prudent and takes precautions, and a Europe that expects all those who find themselves in its territory to respect the rule of law.
First of all I think that it would be unreasonable and irresponsible to deny the extent of clandestine immigration and the fact that it is getting worse. I believe that that would be unreasonable and politically tactless. It is therefore very important, in addition to having measures of a regulatory nature, to develop an active policy of combating trafficking in human beings, because such trafficking constitutes, above all, the exploitation of a great deal of misery, poverty and fear, by organisations which are highly efficient and who not only traffic in human beings but also engage in other criminal activities. For this reason, policing measures, and in particular the intensifying of border checks, are essential if we are to remain one step ahead and ensure that our future external borders will be protected. I would remind you that the largest police operation that has ever been undertaken in Europe is now underway, on our future external borders. Thirty countries are involved, from Finland to the Mediterranean.
I am sure I do not need to tell the European Parliament that, to us, asylum is a sacred concept, that it constitutes the dignity of Europe, and that is why, throughout the world, Europe still acts as a beacon and an example. We cannot preach in favour of democracy and liberty if we do not set an example ourselves. However, at the same time we cannot ignore the fact that this important value is being abused by a considerable number of people, who probably have, in human terms, legitimate reasons for doing so, but who do it to the detriment of those who are fleeing real persecution.
It is therefore a matter of urgency that we should first of all agree on the conditions for receiving would-be refugees into our territory, and not add still further to the attractive prospect which our prosperous and – though we tend to forget it – happy countries pose to those who know only wretchedness and poverty. We must therefore agree quickly on the rules for allowing people to come in, if we want to avoid the phenomenon of asylum shopping.
Asylum is, of course, a right, but is it necessary, in order to have legal guarantees, that things should be complicated, thereby allowing procedures to be dilatory and resulting in a situation in which, in some countries, even after four, five or six years no one has proved capable of taking a decision, so that it is necessary to take measures to regularise the situation? Respect for the law is not incompatible with rapid and effective procedures. These were the questions we raised at the last Council, and I was pleased to find that, among the Fifteen, there was a very broad consensus on the need to reach a consensus on this issue.
Finally, of course, we must define a certain number of rules at European level. I was going to say minimum rules, but I shall not do so because to some people that would mean ‘no improvement’. What I am trying to say is essential rules which do not necessarily go into matters in detail but which translate into practical terms the fundamental political consensus that there has to be on this subject if we are ever to succeed in overcoming this problem. We need to do this quickly, and that is why I said that we must, at the Laeken Summit, try to re-launch the European dynamic, because otherwise the outcome would be negative and not a true reflection of our opinions. We must also decide how much solidarity has to be agreed on at European level because the mere fact that one country happens to be situated at an external border should not mean that that country should necessarily have to bear the whole burden of any measures that are agreed on.
It is true that immigration is another problem, but it is also true that we cannot claim that if we had a more or less unrestricted immigration system all our problems would be solved; nowhere in the world is there any example of such a policy being implemented, and even where the system is the most liberal, it is still not possible to solve all the problems, especially those that are still linked to illegal immigration.
It is therefore necessary to ask a certain number of pertinent questions, and this is what we shall be doing at the conference which will be taking place in a few days’ time in Brussels. How is Europe’s population going to develop? Do we still have any requirements at economic level and if so, of what kind? Will the situation be the same everywhere? Does immigration have to be subject to conditions? Is it to be permanent or for a limited period? Should we demand a certain number of qualifications, risking savage consequences for the countries of origin, which often have a need for precisely those qualifications? Would there not be the risk of an increase in the number of unemployed people, at least in the long run, which would only make budgeting more difficult? If we want to find successful solutions to all these questions, we must have the courage to ask them clearly and to come up with some serious answers, and I hope that that is what will happen at our conference.
Finally, I must tell you that the Belgian Presidency – we may be a small country but we are, I think, a realistic one – would like to draft proposals that bear the stamp of realism, because we believe that such realism is the only thing that will enable us to make the progress that is so essential. If we get lost in ideological or technical considerations, we shall still be debating the question fifteen years hence and we shall still not have made any significant progress."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples