Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-20-Speech-1-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081020.14.1-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Madam President, I am grateful to all the speakers. I should like to confirm to Mrs Segelström that I certainly have begun discussions with the Swedish authorities. Nevertheless, we are having a great deal of difficulty in understanding your country’s position. As Mrs Gebhardt said, Rome III really has at its heart the intention of protecting the weaker spouse at the point when marriage contracts are being concluded. It is truly in this spirit, and it is quite true – perhaps we must continue our dialogue – that we have failed to understand that, in the case of a couple one of whom is Swedish, we also have to take account of the fact that in the absence of any rules, well, it is the 'might is right' principle that prevails. That is where our difficulty in understanding stems from. However, once again, we take note of your position and of that of your Swedish colleague.
In passing, I should also like to correct certain misapprehensions. It is not within our competence, some have said, these questions are exclusively a national competence. Look, there is a paradox here. A Member State cannot exercise a national competence over questions involving two individuals, where one of them is a national of that Member State and the other is not. It is logical that the European Union should surely try to organise matters a little, especially as, contrary to what has been said, international private law has no real answer to this type of problem, and in view of the fact that we have a space in which there is freedom of movement and that space is naturally going to pose more and more problems. If this concern preoccupies the Commission, as it does Parliament, it is not a form of delusion to grapple with the whole problem; it is instead a response to the expectations of a growing number of couples who want to avoid finding themselves in a very confrontational situation in cases of disagreement or break-up. That is where the problem lies! To be sure, I must not let it be said that the Council has said no. It has not said no, it has issued differing opinions! However, for all that, there are nine Member States that are asking for enhanced cooperation. Here is what I wanted to say in conclusion. I remind you that Rome III contains an anti-discrimination clause that allows foreign laws that would not guarantee equality of the spouses to be sidestepped. That much is clear. We are not talking here of sharia, it is a question of this principle of the equality of men and women, and the text enhances the integration of women who are living on our common European soil by giving priority to the law of the country of habitual residence. These women will be able to ask a judge to apply European law in their case if it conforms more closely to the equality of rights. I believe it is this that we should bear in mind.
That being so, this debate has been interesting and I am grateful to all the speakers. I should also like to thank Mrs Gebhardt and Mr Deprez for having willingly taken this opportunity to find out whether, on the eve of a new round of consultations with Member States, we are committing ourselves to an enhanced cooperation exercise. This debate is drawing to a close and I thank the European Parliament very much, for I believe that a great majority of Members really do want us to go down this road, while taking all the care necessary to arrive at the greatest possible consensus. My thanks to Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples