Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.6.2-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The ARGO programme is a good programme, which is designed to promote cooperation between the national administrations in the implementation of common regulations in monitoring external borders, visas, asylum and immigration. It does not focus on the definition of this policy – a subject on which we could voice a great deal of criticism – but instead focuses solely on training the national administrations to carry out efficient, objective and, of course, entirely desirable work.
We have two reservations, however, which led us to vote against the Oostlander report.
The ARGO programme is organised by means of a partnership between the Commission and the Member States, but this partnership does not seem to be balanced. For example, although the actions to be taken are proposed by the national administrations, the Commission alone has the right to choose which actions are retained, after having simply consulted a committee made up of national representatives. The European Parliament’s amendments have further strengthened the prerogatives of the Commission, more than the Commission itself wanted.
An amendment was adopted which calls for refugee status to be granted to people who have been subject to ‘both state and non-state persecution’. This extremely vague wording would open the asylum door to a whole crowd of new immigrants. We must, of course, reject this type of irresponsible measure, which, moreover, bears no relation to the original subject of the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples