Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.2.3-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am delighted to be given the floor after Mr Brok because what he said was music to my ears. His intervention was factual and not polemical and was the first such intervention that we have heard this morning from the German section of the PPE-DE Group. I have heard several times that Mr Haarder was a good colleague. This can only be a reference to his private life. Politically he was many things, but he was not good; I know, because for many years I had to work with him in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. If the policy that Mr Haarder advocated there for years, the line of Danish liberalism, actually becomes the asylum and immigration policy of the European Union, then it will have very little to do with being good and much to do with being harsh.
I should like to say one thing to you, Mr Rasmussen: your position as President-in-Office of the Council does not give you the right to ask Parliament not to concern itself with the domestic politics of Member States, in particular when in his own country, in an area that the Seville Council has said is a priority for the European Union, namely asylum and immigration, the President—in-Office is actually pursuing a policy which he even says himself should become the model for European Union policy. Of course we will be concerning ourselves with Danish domestic policy! The most important speech from your point of view was that given by Mr Camre. Mr Camre is of course the representative of Pia Kjærsgaard's party, the Danish People's Party, by whose silk thread your government dangles. What this party says is very close to the views put forward here by Mr Gollnisch. If I were you, I would give some thought to whether it is right for a Council presidency to seek to pursue a policy that has the full agreement of the
. The fact is that the message you are trying to get across has nothing to do with tolerance or well-ordered immigration, but everything to do with impenetrable borders and the exclusion of minorities. In the European Union we need a combination of two things: for as long as there is no well-ordered immigration, illegal immigration will flourish.
That is why we need to restore order to immigration. In addition to this, however, we need to recognise that immigration happens. Nevertheless, we cannot have immigration at any price. The European Union and the Member States have the right to shape immigration and asylum policy. In exercising this right they are obliged to uphold humane principles. If you are going to refer to Jean Monnet, Mr Rasmussen, then I have to tell you to apply Monnet's method. Your government's philosophy is very distant from that of Monnet. And Spinelli, to whom you also referred, was a Communist politician in Italy who was persecuted there. Whether he would have been granted asylum in your country under the present conditions is something that would require a very detailed examination."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Front National"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples