Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-23-Speech-2-383"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101123.33.2-383"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I have voted in favour of the amendments and against the Berlinguer report, because I am not sure that it provides adequate support for subsidiarity. I do not believe that we should be able to delete important details just because this is a large package of directives. This is a strategy which will backfire. For me, the crux of the matter is paragraph 40, which, in the form that it was adopted today, together with other components of the Stockholm Programme, will provoke conflicts of jurisdiction. In specific terms, there are doubts as to whether we should use family law for the mutual recognition of civil status documents, in other words, marriage certificates, and, therefore, whether we should take into account the decision-making authority of the Member States with regard to the definition of marriage, following the procedure outlined in Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
While this remains unclear, there is a risk of a conflict between the simple procedures of civil law and the complex procedures of cross-border family law. A sentence corresponding with Amendment 3 would have been sufficient to defuse this conflict. This is a detail which, unfortunately, was not supported by the majority in Parliament today. I remain of the opinion that marriage and family life are under the specific protection of the state. They are exclusively a matter for the Member States. Therefore, I have voted against this own-initiative report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples