Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-23-Speech-1-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020923.5.1-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I should like to make two brief remarks following this most interesting and stimulating debate. Firstly, in reply to Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, I would draw her attention to the fact that these two issues were not brought together by the Commission. We addressed them in separate documents. We are discussing both of them today as a result of Parliament's organisational arrangements. For once you cannot blame the Commission.
My second remark, in reply to Mrs Klamt and Mr von Boetticher, concerns the open coordination method. Since Amsterdam, it has been quite clear that the development of European asylum policy will take place in two stages ('generations'). The first generation will take the form of minimum common rules on a number of elements of asylum policy; the second generation, later on, will be based upon a common (maybe even 'single') European asylum system.
In both generations it is undoubtedly quite clear that legislation will play a key role. You must recognise that, in spite of the fact that sometimes we do not agree on the solutions, the Commission has put forward all the proposals for the first stage of legislation only one year after Tampere. I freely acknowledge before the House, as I have always done, that finding a common level playing field on this legislation, even on minimum common rules, has been difficult in the Council. The Council is about to adopt a very famous rule based on one rule with 15 exceptions. If this was achieved in the field of chemistry it would probably merit a Nobel prize, having one rule with 15 different exceptions, one for each of the 15 Member States. We need to recognise that these minimum common rules are not sufficient. I therefore tried to put forward the idea of having a common European asylum policy by means of the open coordination method. The open coordination method does not go against legislation. However, its objective is to complement the insufficient outcome that I acknowledge will most probably be the concrete result of this first-generation legislation.
I should like to draw your attention also to the fact that the open coordination method brings transparency into the system. This is the best way to respect the principle of subsidiarity. There cannot be a central managed asylum system in Europe. That would go against the principle of subsidiarity. Each Member State should be entitled to decide and to take into consideration asylum demands, and to decide in which cases they grant asylum status on the basis of minimum common rules at European level.
The Commission considers that we need to exchange best practices, and to exchange information. That does not happen at present, and this means that the open coordination method has an added value in bringing transparency to the way Member States manage the system. Under our proposal, Parliament will be joining this exercise.
I should like to make it plain that I do not want to go against any kind of communitarisation. On the contrary, I am trying to make sure that we take the necessary and consolidated steps to achieve the Treaty objective. I do not think the open coordination method is a cop-out. In the Lisbon agenda you will see a crystal clear reference to the open coordination method. If you see the proposals that the Commission has put forward on economic governance, you will see that our proposal is to use the open coordination method to determine legally-binding targets, making the open coordination method more effective and therefore achieving more concrete results. I respect your disagreement, but I do not think that I am wrong."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples