Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.5.3-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honour to table a motion to refer this report to committee pursuant to Rule 144 of our Rules of Procedure.
I shall not go back over the arrangements relating to the debate, but I nevertheless believe that the Commission needs to re-examine this report. It is no secret that the rapporteur who was initially designated, Mrs Klamt, finally withdrew and did not want her name to be associated with this report, which meant that it was presented by Mr Watson.
I take the view that there are three areas of uncertainty which warrant referral to committee. Firstly, there is a lack of clarity regarding the definition of reunification. Is it open to permanent residents, to refugees, to temporary residents?
Secondly, there is a lack of clarity regarding the definition of family. Are we talking about nuclear families, legitimate families, extended families, polygamous families, cohabiting families …
But ladies and gentlemen, this list is the result of your own interventions. As you have even asked for ‘homosexual’ families to be included, I do not see why you are protesting.
Finally, there is a lack of clarity regarding the definition of the chekcs as set out in the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Should checks be carried out on the basis of presumption, or on well-founded presumption? Should it be targeted or random? All these definitions must be clarified and that is why, Madam President, I have the honour of tabling this motion for referral to committee."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples