Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-18-Speech-4-311"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-05-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Readmission of third country nationals2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000518.14.4-311"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-05-18-Speech-4-3122
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Thors2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, I want to say that I am speaking as much as a Finn as in my capacity as a representative of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. I would thank the rapporteur and the draftsperson of the opinion for the frank, direct and sincere words they have written about Finland’s initiative. The report states that the initiative was poorly planned, that it contains no justification section, that it was prepared without organisations such as ECRE or UNHCR being consulted and that the relationship between the principles of readmission between the Member States and the principles of readmission to third countries is not made clear. Furthermore, the report states that there is a lack of strategic vision, something which the rapporteur also said. No distinction is made between those who do not fulfil and those who no longer fulfil the conditions in force for residence here. It is all too reminiscent of Austria’s initiative on that famous first day of Austria’s Presidency. There are also no procedural safeguards, which does not surprise me because, less than two months ago, the same Ministry of the Interior which is behind the present initiative proposed that Finnish immigration law be changed to include rapid repatriation. My party, the Swedish People’s Party, voted against this initiative, really for the same reasons that Finland’s constitutional committee had when it considered that the same proposal was unconstitutional because, in the case of rapid repatriation, no one has the right to be heard. It would be wisest, therefore, if Finland were to comply with Parliament’s proposal and withdraw the proposal, as both the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs propose. I would point out that, of all the members of the Committees, only two supported this initiative. I regret that the Council’s and Parliament’s time has been used in this way. I think, like Mrs Berger said, that it could have been used for other things, for example, purely administrative procedures. The issue of women as asylum seekers might also have been reflected upon, because we need to look at the Tampere decision in its entirety with a view to improving the asylum process. I would emphasise that I am speaking as a Finn and as a representative of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph