Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.4.2-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank all those who have spoken. I have taken good note of their comments. There are certainly non-negotiable values in Europe: protecting the life and dignity of every person is an institutional and, above all, a moral duty of ours, and in that respect I thank the rapporteur for having emphasised that and also other speakers for having repeated it clearly.
I believe that the European Union should acknowledge and uphold this basic right for anyone who is truly fleeing persecution or war, but I mean truly fleeing. There is in fact another very clear point, mentioned by Mrs Klamt, amongst others: it is important to avoid abuse; it is important to distinguish clearly between those who are true refugees and are actually fleeing, and those who are economic migrants instead.
It is a matter of credibility. The European strategy requires precise laws and sure means of enforcing them. That is the only way in which we can give a truly shared and sharable response both to those who would have fear prevail and to those who would have the duty of giving a welcome prevail. Both extremes can, I believe, find common ground if we give ourselves transparent laws and clear rules for implementing them, with no more grey areas between what is allowed and what is not.
That is why the directive can and must enter into force as soon as possible. In that way, ladies and gentlemen, we shall be able to avoid retaining those legislative differences between Member States that often result in differential treatment for people who are in the same situation. That, too, is a serious violation, when someone in one Member State is in the same situation as someone else in another Member State but is treated differently.
It is a serious injustice, which the directive can in some way reduce and eliminate. That is why a Europe-wide measure is needed, and I fully agree with that, even though, as many of you have realistically pointed out, it is difficult to imagine that the Council will fully reopen the debate on points of substance.
Many of you – I will mention Mr Fava and Mrs Lambert in particular – have brought up a very important issue: the European list of safe countries. Well, I am aware that there are problems with the legal basis, and I know that the Council is making a forceful case for having only the consultation procedure apply when the list is drawn up. Regardless of the formal legal bases for drawing up the list of safe countries, I believe – and I am personally in favour of this – that it is essential to work with Parliament.
There are formal legal issues with the legal basis, but there are also substantive political issues. I will mention a variety of subjects: the Agency for Fundamental Rights, the data retention question – in other words, topics on which I have proposed that this Parliament should work within a substantive political, interinstitutional agreement, whatever the formal legal bases. Therefore, why should we not also explore the possibility of the Council and Parliament working together on a subject that is clearly sensitive, as Mr Coelho said as well? I frankly agree with many of the comments that have been made: it is difficult to imagine that the Council will now, after four years of negotiations, simply drop the list of safe countries idea. Let us try, then, to give it what I see as a political boost that will involve Parliament much more than Parliament has been involved up to now!
For these reasons I conclude by hoping once more that you will vote for the directive, since voting for it would mean giving substance to that idea of European solidarity that Mr Busuttil has just recalled: European solidarity means sharing responsibilities and also burdens, and it means standing up to the opinions of those who would like to have exclusively national approaches. In my view, Parliament has a chance to give a political response of that kind."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples