Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.4.2-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I support the rapporteur’s arguments, since I believe that the scope of the Austrian initiative is indeed limited. The rapporteur observes that this regulation would only apply to Switzerland, which is clearly insufficient justification for drawing up such a legal instrument. At the same time, the inflexible nature of the proposal makes no provision for mechanisms allowing the list of ‘safe states’ to be revised and countries added or removed. That might lead to the proposed system being paralysed
without any benefits flowing from it, either for those making asylum applications or for those implementing the law.
The rapporteur notes that underlying this Austrian proposal is the problem of a ‘dramatic increase’ in applications for asylum in that country, which is regrettable. Here, however, is where I part company with the rapporteur, since I have to say that I consider it normal and even positive for a Member State to try to exercise its rights and solve its specific problems even if, at times, this might breach the abstract principle of ‘Community interest’, which is very often elusive when it comes to security and justice.
I also support the rapporteur’s contention that the concept of safe third European states should not be targeted by a separate regulation, but should rather be dealt with as part of the comprehensive approach established by the framework of the Directive on asylum policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples