Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-24-Speech-2-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091124.32.2-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the motion for a resolution to which we are referring in this debate is a perfect example, I have to say, of the European Parliament at its worst. Whilst I acknowledge the hard work of the rapporteurs, and no doubt their noble intentions, by trying to include everything in the 27-page text, the motion is confused and, in my view, a lot less valuable than the Stockholm Agenda and the Swedish Presidency deserve.
Let me stress that we, too, want to see greater cooperation in the quest to find solutions, and to have solidarity on immigration and in fighting corruption and exchanging information, but this should not necessarily be at the cost of national sovereignty, nor should it be overly prescriptive.
Applying the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees all over Europe in a proper manner is still the best way of dealing with asylum issues. We support exchange of information to ensure that we have a true JHA approach to the use of data, underpinned by strong data protection, founded on principles of proportionality, necessity and transparency.
We also support the principle of mutual recognition, and free movement rights should be assured for European citizens, but abuse of those rights must be curtailed through strong border controls and by using the EU’s weight to secure quicker returns, and through the development of Frontex protecting the EU’s external borders. The exchange of information helps combat terrorism.
We also support the EU’s serious organised crime strategy, targeting gangs who trade on the trafficking of people, guns and dogs, confiscating profits illicitly gained and working with European organisations on the EU border. However, we cannot support items that we see as blatant encroachments on sovereignty, unless they are in themselves leading to greater cooperation. Surely there is a certain irony in calling for compulsory and irrevocable solidarity: surely solidarity is something that is offered and not compulsory.
In the main, I think the Swedish Presidency, and indeed the motion itself, have good ideas, but unfortunately, as usual, we go on providing ourselves with massive Christmas trees where very little can actually, therefore, be achieved."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples