Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-15-Speech-4-211"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-06-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000615.9.4-211"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-06-15-Speech-4-2122
lpv:speaker	lp:Thierry de La Perriere2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; UEN (1999-07-20--2001-01-30)3 unknown; Rassemblement pour la France (1999-07-20--2000-11-22)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". ( ) In any civilisation, asylum is a concrete example of charity towards those who, for many reasons, find themselves in difficulty, and nobody is contesting the validity of giving aid to those who are victims. Reading Mr Schmitt’s report makes me think we are not talking about the same thing. The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs appears to believe that the disparities in the laws of the Member States actually conceal asylum rights that are non-existent or not often applied, as if we were living under totalitarian regimes and our nations had not been providing asylum for centuries. This same committee discovers the laws of democracy when it suggests that the discrepancies from one country to the next are linked to the political context as much as to the content of the applications. It is clear that, for a European Union that is naturally and deliberately cut off from everyday reality, the political will expressed by the citizens during elections is of no great interest, unless it conforms to Community doctrine. This House does not want to improve the situation for asylum seekers. The political will of this House is, in this field as in any other, to extend the scope of Community power to the detriment of the Member States, who are apparently unworthy of such power. If the German people and their government wish to be the European Union country most welcoming to refugees, they are to be congratulated. If the other countries do not match this, often because they simply do not wish to, then it is nothing to do with the European Parliament and the Commission. Even the Socialist French Government “prefers” – and I quote – “a flexible approach enabling national characteristics of asylum procedure to be observed”. So what about the recurring proposal that costs should be shared? Either the Member States have their own policy, for which they are responsible and which they therefore finance, or the European Union “Communitises” this field and includes the costs in its budget. If such and such a country finds its policy too expensive, let it change the policy. We do not want a Community policy in the hands of the Commission, nor do we want the policy of another government: we want our people and their elected representatives to retain control over their own decisions and destiny."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"FR"1 "La Perriere (UEN ),"1 "in writing"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph