Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-027"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-03-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Carriers' liability2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010313.5.2-027"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-03-13-Speech-2-0282
lpv:speaker	lp:Pernille Frahm2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Socialistisk Folkeparti (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 vice-chair; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this proposal is about dealing with symptoms of an exceptionally serious disease. Unfortunately, it is a proposal which not only ignores the disease but also exacerbates both the symptoms and the disease. The idea, of course, is that it should act as a deterrent, but I should like to know whom it is imagined will be deterred. Whom is it imagined will be intimidated by this proposal? Those who think it will act as a deterrent are the humanitarian organisations, church people and those who have their hearts in the right place and who have to account for where their money comes from and how they use it. Whom is it imagined will profit from this? It will be the Mafia and other unscrupulous people. Take a country like Afghanistan which is now almost surrounded by closed borders. Pakistan does not want to take any more refugees. There is no room for more camps in the locality, as some of us call it. The camps cannot hold any more people, but there are always people who are obliged to become refugees, and they have to pay to get out. Whom do we want them to pay? The Mafia, or the church and humanitarian organisations? If we increase the penalty, then we see the price rise. People who have to become refugees will pay dearly for the proposal we are discussing now. A heavier penalty will also mean that there will be fewer suppliers in this market. Fewer people will offer to help future refugees. Those who remain will be the Mafia. They will be able to charge their own price, and they will eventually have a monopoly over this area. I understand that there are Member States which are very worried about this proposal. I understand that the Swedish Presidency is alarmed by it. I would urge them very strongly to use their right of veto in the Council and put a stop to it. In addition, I would recommend that, in the discussion of the proposal, at least two things are ensured. Firstly, a distinction should be drawn between organisations which intervene for money and for profit, and organisations which do so for humanitarian and compassionate reasons. This distinction crucially determines the situation into which we put refugees. Secondly, I think that it is important that we do not pass on our responsibility to just any old carriers. It cannot be right for some employee of Sabena, Air France or SAS to be made responsible for assessing what should happen in an asylum case. That is our own responsibility."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph