Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-26-Speech-3-401-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111026.23.3-401-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Jean Lambert, on the huge amount of work she has done, despite some fairly difficult discussions on this subject with the Council, and I would also like to wish Ms Malmström luck for the next stage. We will all need it.
Like others before me, I also wish to raise two points among those that I believe are of particular interest and are a step in the right direction, concerning the outcome of this directive. They are the definition of family members, of course, which now includes the parents of married minors, and also the introduction of the notions of gender identity and sexual orientation as recognised grounds for persecution.
In my view, the various advances made in this text are important for the remaining negotiations on the asylum package, if we are to ensure that the text of the package is truly consistent, as it deserves to be. We should in fact use these elements of the Qualification Directive as valid precedents for the directives on procedures and on reception conditions, and even for the Dublin II Regulation.
I know that this approach is not necessarily shared by some Member States within the Council. In truth, however, what are our objectives? Do we wish to establish common standards, or do we want to carry on juxtaposing national systems, the shortcomings and inequalities of which we see every day, and which serve only to perpetuate a system of asylum lottery? Do we wish to carry on seeing Court rulings for failure to respect international conventions and not do anything about it? The answer is most certainly ‘No’.
Our aim is to complete the common asylum system in 2012. This does not mean that we should settle for the lowest common denominator. We should not move forward just for the sake of it. Furthermore, the cost argument, which is still regularly heard during our discussions, is not a valid one, even in these times of budgetary cuts. Cost rationalisation, as is sometimes practised by certain Member States, is nothing but a short-term approach that will not succeed in solving the structural problems of the European asylum system.
At present, there is a tendency to mistrust and reject those who enter European territory. To combat this mistrust, clear and shared rules must be laid down. This is what the reform of the asylum package is all about. Concluding it in accordance with harmonised standards would evidently be to the Union’s credit."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples