Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-22-Speech-1-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030922.7.1-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs voted to reject the Austrian initiative on a regulation establishing criteria for determining the states which qualify as safe third states for the purpose of taking the responsibility for examining an application for asylum lodged by a third-country national. That vote clearly reflects a broad consensus, at least a procedural one, to the effect that this instrument is not a useful one, and that seeing the initiative through to its conclusion would be a wasted effort. This consensus exists in spite of this initiative’s good intentions with regard to the fundamental issue.
Mr Schmidt has clearly understood that Parliament does not want to turn its attention away from really important matters, and that it is not prepared to take short-cuts which do not actually lead anywhere. That is why I, and my political group, support the rapporteur’s position. In brief, if I may assess the initiative on its own merits and, to an extent, repeat what has already been said here, its overall scope seems extremely limited, both because 10 of the 15 countries classed as safe third countries on the proposed list have already agreed to implement Dublin II and the whole Schengen
and because, as we all know, it is unclear when Bulgaria and Romania will be in a position to be covered by any Community regulation.
That would make the regulation meaningless, since once Norway and Iceland have incorporated the Schengen
into their national legislation, only Switzerland would remain on the list presented by Austria. Besides, and here also I am reiterating points which seem uncontroversial, it is hoped that the Directive on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status will be approved rapidly by the Council, as Parliament demanded in the Watson report and as was promised, furthermore, in Seville. If that happens by the end of the year, as we hope, it would quickly render the Austrian initiative obsolete, since this Directive will resolve the fundamental issue of safe third countries. When all is said and done, then, Mr President, that is why today’s debate took place. The fact is that even after Parliament had made a statement on the matter, we were not subsequently consulted about the revised Commission initiative, amended on 18 June 2002. The message we want to send today, therefore, is that we wish to make our point of view known through this debate on asylum procedures. In the final analysis, that is the crux of the matter, and Parliament cannot accept that a joint solution should be postponed and sacrificed in order to accommodate national prejudices or demands. Rather, we must set aside superfluities and hindrances, devoting ourselves without further ado to the task in hand. Precisely in order to avoid any further ado, therefore, I will thank Commissioner Vitorino, who has today shed some light on the matter and made our short debate entirely worthwhile."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples