Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.5.3-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Although the Watson report on the proposal for a directive on family reunification is excessively liberal, it has just been adopted by the European Parliament, with a large majority of 323 votes to 212. This vote shows just how European MEPs and the Commission, which drafted the original proposal, are both failing in their main duty, which is not to satisfy the whole world, but to protect Europe’s citizens.
This vote also confirms what we have always said about communitising immigration policy by means of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which is being applied here to the particular case of family reunification by means of Article 63(3) of the Treaty on European Union: the transfer of decision-making powers from national level to European level is being used not to strengthen nations, as some have claimed in order to deceive voters, but instead to demolish their defences more completely.
The proposal for a directive on family reunification, as approved by the Watson report, proclaims a Community-level law on family reunification which, in legal terms, does not yet exist at this level and which, in our opinion, should not be made law. The truth is that the host State does not force the immigrants to move there. This is a decision taken by the immigrant himself, and if he is received into that State, it is not his place to claim the right to bring in other people.
One notes, moreover, that the preamble to the proposal for a directive refers virtuously to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the international covenant of 1966, which recognise that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. At the same time, the so-called Convention which is drafting a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union is stubbornly refusing to take this principle into consideration. It appears then that recognition of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society is useful when it serves to justify family reunification, but is no longer useful when it could serve to support European families.
The proposal for a directive approved by the Watson report is not content to proclaim this non-existent law. It gives the title ‘applicant’ not only to legal immigrants but also to people who have refugee status. Moreover, the beneficiaries of family reunification are not just the applicant's spouse and children under 18, but also the unmarried partner who is in a stable relationship with the applicant, which will include homosexual couples when the Member State’s legislation treats them in the same way as married couples for legal purposes. The directive also includes children of full age who cannot reasonably look after themselves, as well as the relatives in the ascending line of the applicant, their spouse, or even of their unmarried partner.
It is quite clear that the floodgates are open wide and that the aim is to encourage immigration on a massive scale that will change the very nature of European societies.
The political classes in each country could probably not have voted for such a text, because they are too closely watched by the public. They have therefore shifted the responsibility over to Brussels, which is now forced to do their dirty work behind closed doors That is the real job of Europe today."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples