Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.4.2-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Austria, using the right of initiative that Member States still have in the field of immigration policy, has just submitted a useful proposal: to draw up a list of European countries considered to be safe in terms of their respect for human rights in order to determine whether to allow them to examine applications for asylum lodged in a Member State by persons that have passed through their territory first. This measure appears to simplify matters, to be common sense, to match the need for closer cooperation between European countries in light of the influx of refugees of all sorts.
This Austrian initiative, which we supported, has not been fortunate enough to meet with the favour of the European Parliament which, in rejecting it, invoked various legal grounds, all of which are quite specious. One of the reasons given is that this text would anticipate a future, broader directive on asylum procedures.
The real reason is quite different. As we can see from the explanatory statement, the European Parliament is clinging to a narrow interpretation of the Geneva Convention, which was founded on the principle of ‘non-refoulement’. This principle is absolute and without shades of meaning or conditions. It is this narrow interpretation that must be called into question if we genuinely want to address asylum-related issues."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples