Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-27-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050927.4.2-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you all know the position: the directive on asylum procedures has been the subject of negotiations in the Council for over four years; the outcome therefore reflects a fragile compromise among the Member States of the Union.
I have to be frank and say that it is a compromise that certainly does not rise to great heights of ambition. I am well aware of the concerns expressed in the report, and in part I share them. I therefore thank the rapporteur for the work he has done, even though the difficulties that we have encountered and the fact that the directive still does not aim very high are further good reasons – and I really mean no paradox in this – for Parliament to approve the report today and to make this complex procedure continue until the directive enters into force.
In my view, there are, first of all, excellent methodological reasons for adopting the report. Indeed, if the directive enters into force, any subsequent proposal on this topic will have to go through the system of qualified majority voting, not unanimity any more, and it will have to go through the codecision procedure involving the Council and Parliament. That means that, once the first stage is over with the approval of this directive, we shall have the prospect of Parliament having a codecision vote in the subsequent stages, which I consider to be about the substance. I am hopeful that we will achieve this result as soon as possible, just as soon as we approve the directive.
Then there are reasons regarding future prospects. Shifting the procedure from unanimity to qualified majority and from Parliament merely giving its opinion to codecision will allow us to achieve something that for me, perhaps, and I think for many others, is even more important: achieving a common European asylum system by 2010, involving not just the procedures any more, but the substance, the difference in concrete terms between European action and action just by the Member States.
Then there are other reasons, concerning content, which again justify your voting in favour. The directive is certainly just a first step, but you will all recall the Tampere Council several years ago when it was actually decided that Europe’s asylum strategy would be a step-by-step strategy, that is to say the procedure and the substance would not be put into effect at the same time together, but would proceed in stages. This is just a first step, I have to admit, but this first step will make a great difference, ladies and gentlemen.
Today, I think I can say that we have more than 20 different systems for the procedures themselves. I will not say 25, but it is nearly that many. A number of concerns remain, as expressed by this Parliament and by the Commission, and also by me personally and in public, about the need to harmonise the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.
With the directive, we shall have a common procedure and minimum standards across Europe and, most of all, I would say, we shall give the Court of Justice the power to apply and interpret them. As you well know, the case law of the Court of Justice is often highly advanced in its interpretation. We shall also then give the Commission the opportunity to enforce the common rules. These opportunities do not exist today and, in my opinion, they will make a considerable difference.
If, on the other hand, we were to stop today, if this step-by-step approach were not to go ahead, some of us would certainly continue to call for the text to be improved. I have to be frank, though: the Council is unlikely, highly unlikely, to reopen substantive talks after five years of negotiations. As a result, should the Council not intervene, there will be demands and there will probably be growing concerns, but that European strategy on the subject – procedures today and substance and legislation on asylum tomorrow – will not get under way.
That is why, if we balance the advantages of a text that is not perfect against the serious dangers of a void in European legislation, which worries us even more, I strongly hope that this Parliament can adopt the report and issue a favourable opinion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples