Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-06-Speech-3-323"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090506.38.3-323"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, allow me, first of all, to make a few general remarks. I have been heavily involved in drafting European asylum and immigration policy over the past few years on behalf of my group, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. I am sure that virtually everyone can see the usefulness and necessity of such a policy. After all, what a Europe without internal borders is crying out for is a common approach in this field. Having said that, I would point out that the standards we have agreed on and the results we have achieved to date contrast greatly with the ambitions set out in the Tampere Programme, the Hague Programme and, most recently, the French Asylum and Immigration Pact.
I am sure that the Stockholm Programme of the incoming Swedish Presidency will also most likely contain the most wonderfully phrased provisions, but, if I may say so, esteemed President-in-Office of the Council, I would advise having nothing to do with it because, in practice, the Member States will once again turn their backs on it soon enough.
The problem is that, every time the Council has to take a concrete decision, the highest common denominator suddenly seems to become the lowest one, and so the desired harmonisation effect fails to materialise. In addition, when it comes to transposition into national legislation, many Member States have failed to live up to the agreements we have struck, both in terms of timing and accuracy.
What this has led to, in practice, is enormous differences between the Member States. This is not only causing confusion, but also playing into the hands of those who are abusing the system. It seems that the Council has either completely or partially failed to grasp the fact that improving quality and ensuring greater consistency and solidarity is not only in the interests of the asylum seeker, but also in the interests of the Member States themselves.
As far as my own report is concerned, I would like to say the following: the existing Dublin Regulation is also the product of a fragile political compromise reached in the Council. As a result, we now have a text which contains too many ambiguous passages and gaps. I wholeheartedly support the Commission’s aspiration to create a uniform and efficient Dublin system.
In my view, Article 31 is the most important political element in the proposed recast. As I more or less said just now, I see the lack of consistency and solidarity on the Council’s part as the biggest stumbling block to achieving a common asylum and immigration policy. From that perspective alone, I can very well understand the provisions of Article 31 of the Commission’s proposal.
However, the fact remains that the Dublin system was not developed as, nor is it intended to be, an instrument for burden-sharing. Another thing that is patently obvious is that the Dublin system did not emerge, in its own right, as a response to exceptional asylum pressure or to an excessive burden on certain Member States. Therefore, I fear that, despite its good intentions, the Commission proposal will fall short of generating greater consistency and solidarity amongst Member States.
May I also point out that those Member States which are now struggling with excessive burdens because of their demographic situation or, perhaps, their geographical position, are not being helped by this proposal, or are being helped only to an inadequate degree. This means that the issue of solidarity must be addressed in a broader context.
Over the last few years, it has become crystal clear that what Member States need is a carrot-and-stick approach. As far as I am concerned, this means that it is also time, high time at that, that we achieved a breakthrough, because solidarity amongst Member States will have to be enforced in one way or another.
I know that certain Member States have responded rather negatively, to put it mildly, to the proposals adopted by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I am also aware that I am treading on dangerous ground here, with regard to the Commission’s right of initiative. Fair is fair, however, and, to be quite frank, I am fed up with merely hearing fine words on this matter."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples