Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-11-Speech-2-018"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-02-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Freedom of movement and residence for EU citizens2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030211.1.2-018"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-02-11-Speech-2-0192
lpv:speaker	lp:Carlos Coelho2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2002-02-07--2003-03-09)3 unknown; Partido Social Democrata (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I highlighted in my report on European citizenship, which we adopted in plenary last September, recognising European citizenship has been a slow process that even today faces too many obstacles, with initiatives having to be carried out to ensure that the concept of European citizenship is fully implemented in its political, administrative, judicial, social and economic aspects. I also recommended at that time that, in order to deal with the obstacles still hampering EU citizens’ exercise of freedom of movement and residence, the proposal for a directive that we are discussing today should be adopted as rapidly as possible. By reworking existing texts, this proposal attempted to introduce the much -needed streamlining by combining in a single legal instrument the right to free movement and residence in the European area, and enshrine, specifically, the right of permanent residence at the end of four years of continuous residence. This is a welcome proposal. The work of our rapporteur, Mr Santini – and very good work it is – has helped to introduce into this proposal a set of contributions that I believe are extremely positive. There are, nevertheless, two areas that have already been mentioned in this debate, which still pose problems. They concern the definition of the family, an excessively broad definition, which appears to seek to force national legislation to recognise the definition of an unmarried partner as a family member. I believe that common sense would here dictate respect for national law and for the provisions laid down in each Member State. This also applies to the excessively broad concept of family member, on which I think it would be more reasonable to uphold the current acquis for direct descendants and direct relatives in the ascending line, contrary, therefore, to the widening put forward in the proposal. This could lead to an enormous increase in the number of people requesting family reunification. The widening of the definition proposed by Mr Santini is therefore acceptable on humanitarian grounds or on serious health grounds."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph