Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030211.1.2-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, we have been waiting for this directive on the free movement of persons for many, maybe too many years, and now it is here at last, we support it, it has our backing. In actual fact, I have taken the floor not least in order to present to the rapporteur, both in words and on paper, the Transnational Radical Party’s petition, signed by 1122 people of 30 different nationalities, who are calling for full respect for the free movement of persons within the European Union in order to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples.
In this regard, I would like to say, in particular, to the rapporteur, Mr Santini, and Mr Pirker – who appears to see in some of the amendments and sections which have been included by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs the desire to use the directive on free movement to impose a single family model throughout Europe – that this accusation is unfounded, and the texts they adopted prove it. What we are trying to do is not impose a single family model unduly but ensure that, with regard to the free movement of persons, with regard to European legislation, therefore, there is no difference in treatment, no discrimination on the basis of the fact that some couples are recognised to take a particular form, to be same-sex or heterosexual couples. This is our request. We do not think that in providing for the free movement of persons within the European Union we would automatically be introducing same-sex marriages throughout Europe, but if same-sex marriages are recognised in one country, when the same-sex couple moves to another country, its rights in terms of free movement – not in terms of all family rights – should be recognised. This is the point, and that is why I am asking the Members of the other groups not to remove the phrase ‘irrespective of sex’. The objection has been raised that it is unnecessary, that it is superfluous. We are not lawyers or barristers. We simply believe that this phrase, this expression should be preserved in the text. If it then proves to be superfluous, so much the better. Therefore: free movement irrespective of sex of persons who have entered into marriage or unmarried partnerships."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples