Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-21-Speech-1-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021021.7.1-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I share the view that the directive to be drafted here is a fundamental one, and it is our common opinion that asylum law is in urgent need of harmonisation. Between the rapporteur's approach and that of the European People's Party, however, there are fundamental differences.
What are these differences? You propose a common approach to dealing with subsidiary protection and the protection accorded to refugees. We are opposed to that; we want separate directives. You propose extension of protection far beyond the bounds set by the Geneva Convention. We want the Geneva Convention retained. You want to take family reunification much further than consensus in this House has previously allowed. We want the nuclear family. You want to grant subsidiary protection, for five years and with a residence permit, immediately. That does not make sense, so we want protection to be given for as long as it is reasonably needed. So it is that the measures you are presenting here do not ensure that help is speedily given to real refugees under the Geneva Convention, but rather incite the use of asylum for immigration by economic migrants, and that tends towards its misuse.
What we find lacking in the Lambert Report, though, are primarily calls for quick procedures enabling us to decide in the minimum of time who is a refugee and who has a chance of asylum. At present, that amounts in any case to some 90% of applicants for asylum. Your report contains no reference to an EU-wide list of safe third states and states of origin. It contains nothing about applicants being required to go back if they are not given permission to remain, nor does it contain measures to ensure that they do so. Nor does it contain any demand for the European Union to conclude agreements with third countries, countries of origin and transit countries, to take applicants back. Finally, it contains no firm demand that Dublin II be used to prevent asylum shopping.
In so many respects does this report contradict our thinking that I have to say that the European People's Party is unable to support it unless the relevant changes are made."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples