Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-05-Speech-4-110"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010705.4.4-110"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I abstained on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the European Union because certain forces in this House have again exploited this report to give credence to the argument that a Member State would not be respecting fundamental rights in the European Union if it did not amend its legislation to permit homosexual marriages and grant homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples. That is going too far.
There should be provision for unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexual couples to settle certain difficulties connected with their position, for instance by concluding an agreement.
However, there can be no question of granting them the rights of a surviving spouse in terms of social security, or, for example, the same rights as a married couple, with or without children, in terms of taxation and adoption.
Unmarried couples can separate far more easily and cheaply, while divorce proceedings are always complicated, expensive and painful. A regulation like that advocated in the report would end up discriminating against married heterosexual couples. That cannot be allowed to happen.
In a chapter on European citizenship, there is an attempt to get it accepted that a Member State is violating fundamental rights if it does not grant the right to vote and to stand for the European Parliament and local elections to nationals of third countries legally resident in their territory for at least three years.
The right to vote is acquired on the basis of reciprocity by citizens of Member States of the Union living in another Member State. The Portuguese can vote and stand for election in Luxembourg and I could do the same if I lived in Portugal. However, why grant an Algerian, for example, the right to vote in a Member State if a national of that Member State does not have the right to vote in Algeria?
I cannot agree with these demands, quite apart from the fact that we are talking about areas of civil and political rights that come under national sovereignty. Each Member State is free to grant such rights to nationals of third countries and offer such solutions to its residents. There can be no question of this Parliament condemning Member States which decide not to do so."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples