Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.4.2-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, before beginning my speech, I would propose the following exercise, both to the people who are present and to those who are absent, because there is nobody here from the Council, although there should be. Imagine from now on that you are included in the scope of this directive and that we are talking about your husbands, wives and children. I believe that would be a good exercise.
Secondly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Cerdeira Morterero. She had a very difficult job to do. The Commission's first proposal was well received by this House. We made certain proposals which have not been taken into account, and not only that, but as a result of the debates of the absent Council we have received a new proposal which we do not like nearly so much. Despite this, the rapporteur has made an effort to find a way to move forward, since we believe this is a very important element of immigration policy which should be established as soon as possible. We therefore accept many of the new proposals presented to us, we accept the basis on which they are founded, we accept the idea of having to demonstrate the capacity to maintain the family, we are prepared to wait for an agreement on a new proposal on subsidiary protection, but there are certain things which, despite everything, we cannot accept.
We cannot accept a limitation of entry for minor children for any reason, and this appears obvious to us. We cannot accept the extension of time limits and we cannot accept – we do not like it at all – the number of exceptions which, despite the goodwill of the Commission, appear in the proposal. Despite this, and without much success, we in the PSE are prepared to reach an agreement and continue talking.
Ladies and gentlemen, as I have said, we are talking about family life. I imagine that the PPE-DE agrees that this is the basis of our society. We cannot accept a proposal which raises to three years – and three years and nine months if we include the procedure – the period during which a man and more and more often a woman – please bear this in mind – has to wait before having their children with them? Do you know what happens to a child between four and seven years old or between seven and twelve years old? Is it reasonable to create so much disquiet amongst people who we want to live within our society?
I would like to pose a question: would it not be better to recognise that we human beings live in families? Could we not create laws which make it easier for families to enter? Would this not be more practical? In exchange, I would be prepared to talk about the inclusion in the quotas of people who come to work, inclusion in the open coordination method, and in these quotas, of people who come for purposes of family reunification. But I believe that that would really be a more practical policy in terms of integrating these citizens into our society."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples