Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-10-Speech-1-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000410.4.1-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my Group is highly delighted with the proposal to set up a European Refugee Fund and also with the way in which Mrs Frahm has tackled this problem in her role as rapporteur. The asylum policy urgently needs a European approach. We do not wish to see a downward spiral where Member States compete in making their own country look unattractive, the way the Netherlands did, for example, when it appeared on CNN with leaking tents in which refugees could be received. As Europeans, we do not want that sort of policy. We most certainly do not want one country to shift its responsibility to another.
On behalf of my Group, I wish this new type of Structural Fund, because this is what it comes down to, every success. I also want to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, on the handling of this important topic and I hope that she will accept my efforts in the field of tailor-made solutions for what they mean as regards, on the one hand, refugees and, on the other, displaced persons.
Setting up this fund is therefore a step in the right direction. It provisionally brings the desired solidarity within the European Union symbolically into focus. It is only right that the countries which do a great deal per capita of the population should be the first to receive financial support. This is also the thrust of the amendment tabled by my Group. Subsequently, the aid figures will need to correlate with the absolute numbers. I suggest including these two values in an algebraic formula, a task which I pass on to the officials with pleasure. Needless to say, the values will depend on the influx of asylum seekers in each country, the number of people granted refugee status, obviously in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and the number of displaced persons received.
The tasks supported by the fund are covered in the proposal and by the rapporteur. We are extremely pleased with the broad support for our concept of tailor-made solutions. As Mrs Frahm mentioned a moment ago, the tailor-made aspect refers to the difference between those who have attained refugee status as individuals and those who are benefiting from temporary protection as displaced persons who have been driven out on a massive scale. Individual refugees gain from a dynamic approach to their integration in all kinds of areas within the European Union, such as permanent jobs, housing, the settling of whole families etc.
Displaced persons, on the other hand, have been driven out en masse and against their will and want to return to their home country. For them, it is important to optimise their chance of repatriation with dignity. In order to achieve this, they need to maintain their own social networks and they need activities which will strengthen their prospects in their country of origin upon their return and, of course, they need to be able to maintain their self-respect.
In this respect, Amendment No 19 deals with refugees, while Amendment No 21 focuses on displaced persons. We should really spell this out a little more clearly.
In my opinion – and this is my personal opinion – integration should also include the recognition of the religions of the new minorities. This is why my Amendment No 20, which I supported on my own in committee, has mysteriously found its way back into the report, thus affording Members who wish to prove their broad-mindedness in this respect the final opportunity, in one way or another, to include this amendment in the report.
I have been informed that the European Commission is carrying out a comparative study into the asylum policy of the Member States. I am very curious to see whether this report will be published before long. It could, in itself, contribute towards the common policy based on best practices. It is also vital that this report is made available as soon as possible. This week, for example, in the Dutch Lower Chamber – and undoubtedly elsewhere – an asylum policy is again being discussed which is drafted in such a way as to be completely out of tune with everything that is happening in the EU Member States. This seems very bad policy on the part of the Netherlands. However, perhaps this is also happening elsewhere. In my opinion, the Commission should keep its finger on the pulse, in a tactful manner, of course, but a finger on the pulse nonetheless.
It makes sense that the fund should mainly focus on improving the procedures, but at least as interesting is the Community’s approach to the phenomenon of displaced persons. After all, this is a category which– more than anything – is typified by the need for security, without choosing a particular EU Member State as such.
We are also in favour of EU aid being earmarked for a common follow-up scheme which monitors the experiences of repatriates and which also offers a certain level of guarantee. It goes without saying that we, as Christian Democrats, welcome the efforts of private organisations and those of refugees and displaced persons themselves with open arms."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples