Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-086"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030903.5.3-086"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-03-Speech-3-0872
lpv:speaker	lp:Toine Manders2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". This report is a welcome improvement on the existing situations of the different social security systems, particularly for border regions that experience a great deal of cross-frontier working, and the rapporteur has done a great job in this respect. With regard to Amendment No 20 about the definition of the household/the family, a majority of the ELDR Group has voted in favour of this amendment and despite this, has not requested a roll-call vote, as we think it would be very undesirable to risk the whole report being voted out. This would also be the reason for the rapporteur agreeing to reject Amendment No 20. I need to get something off my chest. This Parliament spends many session hours every month on fundamental human rights in countries outside of Europe. We get involved in virtually every incident of what is unacceptable according to European standards. However, when we discuss human rights within Europe, such as sexual orientation, we refuse to nail our colours to the mast. It is a disgrace, in my view, for Parliament to want to retain the option of placing citizens outside of the law on account of their sexual orientation. There are, of course, various arguments that can be used to support this view; you could, of course, say that this is a case of subsidiarity, or that it is more important to adopt the report than the principled choice in Amendment No 20. To do so nevertheless infringes another right, namely the right of every European to be able to work within the European Union. By rejecting Amendment No 20, the labour mobility of a number of citizens is curtailed quite severely, and this in a progressive Europe, no less. Fortunately, this selfsame Parliament has, probably unwittingly, recently adopted a similar amendment in the Santini report. As a Liberal, I hope that this approval will offer sufficient guarantees for all European citizens."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph