Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-24-Speech-2-352"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091124.33.2-352"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for your many interesting contributions to this debate. I would like to start by attempting to sum up some of the most important principles in this matter. I will begin with what Mrs Mathieu said in her first point about the issue of mixed migration flows. It is indeed the case that we have mixed flows coming to the European Union and as the Union does not have unlimited capacity to accept these people, as Mrs Mathieu pointed out, it is important to carry out an individual, legally certain assessment in order to be able to determine who should receive protection in accordance with European legislation and international conventions. The Commission monitors this by means of the directives that have been adopted unanimously within the Union.
That leads me nicely on to the views expressed earlier by Mrs Guillaume and Mrs de Sarnez, namely whether Afghanistan is a country in which it is possible to guarantee an individual’s safety. Well, yes, that is precisely what this entire debate is about! That is exactly what an individual review aims to clarify and ensure. The purpose of the establishment of a common European asylum system is to achieve this aim. I think that several of the speakers completely overlooked this fact in their speeches, in other words, that a legally certain review, with the purpose of clarifying that ‘yes’ means ‘yes’ and ‘no’ means ‘no’, is what we must endeavour to achieve. In the case of a ‘no’, the person must be returned, irrespective – and I will repeat this so that everyone understands precisely what the Presidency’s intentions are – of the country concerned. If we have clarified and ensured that a person is not in need of special protection, we can send them back to their country of origin with a clear conscience. Whether this is done, as Commissioner Barrot said, in a coordinated way on a flight with several different people on board whose cases have all been reviewed individually, or whether they travel separately, is actually of secondary importance. It is merely a question of logistics in this context.
I will now turn to Mrs Keller, who always brings interesting arguments to these matters. Yes, I share your view that the question of access is a complicated one. It is difficult when we currently have a system which, in principle, requires someone to be present within the European Union in order to submit an application for asylum, while at the same time, it is perhaps not always particularly easy for them to get to the European Union in order to do this. However, this is precisely why, during the Swedish Presidency, we have pressed on with the work to set up a common European resettlement system, which will make it possible to offer an alternative route, a passage, within the European Union for those who are perhaps the most in need of protection, the most vulnerable and the people who do not have the financial resources to travel to the European Union.
Let me say that if all of the EU Member States could provide as many places as Sweden is currently doing – we have 1 900 places annually – in relation to the size of their populations, the European Union would be able to provide 100 000 places annually to UNHCR, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is a major strategic step to be able to close the worst refugee camps around the world and stand up and show the solidarity that we in the Presidency believe that the European Union should be showing to the countries outside our borders which, in fact, contain most of the world’s refugees."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples