Debates

Tuesday, 7 September 2010 - Strasbourg

17. Discrimination of same-sex married or in civil-partnership couples (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on:

- the oral question to the Commission on discrimination against same-sex married or in civil-partnerships couples, by Cornelis de Jong and Eva-Britt Svensson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, by Marije Cornelissen, Raül Romeva i Rueda and Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, and by Michael Cashman, Britta Thomsen, Sophia in ’t Veld and Sirpa Pietikäinen (O-0081/2010 – B7-0451/2010),

- the oral question to the Commission on mutual recognition of marriages and civil partnerships contracted by same-sex couples, by Claude Moraes, Michael Cashman and Monika Flašíková Beňová, on behalf of the S&D Group (O-0117/2010 – B7-0459/2010),

- the oral question to the Commission on discrimination against same-sex couples, freedom of movement, LGBT rights and the EU Roadmap by Sophia in ’t Veld, Renate Weber, Niccolò Rinaldi, Sarah Ludford, Sonia Alfano, Cecilia Wikström, Alexander Alvaro and Gianni Vattimo, on behalf of the ALDE Group (O-0118/2010 – B7-0460/2010).

  Cornelis de Jong, author. – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, my partner and I have been living together for over 21 years. Recently, we took advantage of the possibility that exists in the Netherlands to have our partnership officially registered. This means that, in the Netherlands, we enjoy exactly the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Incidentally, we could have chosen marriage instead, as that option is open to same-sex couples in the Netherlands.

Let us suppose that I decide to go and work in Poland and that my partner comes with me. In that case, we would no longer be seen as a couple, as Poland is yet to recognise same-sex partnerships. In other words, exercising the EU right of free movement of workers would mean us losing a number of fundamental rights, for example, in the field of social security and pensions. Whilst married heterosexual couples can simply retain their status, therefore, same-sex couples cannot. Thus, the right of free movement is restricted. The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left is not advocating that the Commission present proposals for harmonisation of family law in this field. This remains a matter for the Member States. What we are doing, however, is asking the Commission to present proposals ensuring that the rights enjoyed by employed and self-employed workers in connection with freedom of movement are the same for everyone.

At the moment, the Commission seems to be hesitant, to say the least, when it comes to developing such proposals. That was why my fellow Members and I requested this evening’s debate. I sincerely hope that the Commissioner is able to assure us that something will be done about this quickly and that, in the field of social security and pensions, for example, couples taking up residence in another Member State will enjoy the same rights irrespective of whether they are a homosexual or heterosexual couple.

  Marije Cornelissen, author. – (NL) Madam President, free movement of European citizens is a fundamental value of the European Union. It is unacceptable for a large group of people to be excluded from exercising this value: people in a same-sex marriage or partnership, whose relationship is not recognised in a number of EU countries. This is not a small technical problem, but rather touches the most important things in the life of a human being. Can I take my beloved with me, and my young children, if I go and work in another country? Would my beloved be entitled to a pension or benefit in the event of my sudden death? It goes even deeper than this.

Commissioner Reding, imagine you have been very happily married to a woman for years. You go together to Italy or Greece, where you have found the job of a lifetime. Everything goes very well for a few years, but then disaster strikes. Your beloved partner is involved in a road accident and ends up in intensive care. It could be that you are unable to take any decisions regarding your life partner, that you cannot even be at her side to hold her hand, because as far as Italy is concerned, you are no one and have nothing to do with her.

Madam President, I am delighted that more and more countries are allowing same-sex couples to marry or enter into civil partnerships, and tens of thousands of people have already taken advantage of this, with numbers increasing steadily. Sadly, some Member States are lagging behind. I find this regrettable, but we, Parliament, cannot force them to catch up. What we can call for, however, is recognition, so that all EU citizens really can enjoy their right to freedom of movement.

I should like Commissioner Reding to tell us how she intends to work with us to make this a reality.

  Michael Cashman, author. – Madam President, Commissioner Reding’s record on non-discrimination is exemplary, and the two testimonies she has heard tonight are intensely interesting.

Like Mr de Jong, I am a gay man in a civil partnership, in a relationship of 27 years that has only been recognised by the state for five years.

As was said earlier, if I were to have an accident whilst on holiday in Italy, my partner would not even be given the basic right to decide whether, in such a case, I should be on a life support machine or not.

It is these basic elements that are so private and personal of which we are deprived on the sole basis of prejudice. There are those who say that mutual recognition and respect for civil laws and civil rights acquired in another country, and recognised and enforced in another Member State, would undermine a Member State’s competence on marriage.

That is absolute nonsense. I am afraid it is an argument proposed by those who wish to have any excuse not to achieve equality.

There are five Member States that recognise same-sex marriage. There are 12 that recognise civil partnerships. Ten of the 27 remain outside that brilliant ring of tolerance, equality and understanding.

Commissioner, it is your role – and I know it is a role you will take up – to push them into that ring of tolerance and understanding. Then we really will have an area of freedom, security and justice, not just for some, but for all, regardless of one’s sexual orientation, gender or gender identity.

In politics, it is so easy to follow public opinion. The hardest and most difficult thing to do is to lead it and to face down prejudice. If this House does the right thing and you, Commissioner, do the right thing, then we really can change the Union and change people’s lives for the better, not only for ourselves, but for generations to come.

The record of your hearing is unequivocal. You said that you believed that rights acquired in one country should be respected in another. I have the quote here, but I know I do not need to remind you of it because you are a woman of principle who will stand up against persecution and discrimination.

  Sophia in 't Veld, author. – Madam President, Commissioner, just a couple of days ago, I was watching a documentary on BBC World about some countries in the Caucasus where it is customary for men to ride out and steal a bride. When their eye catches a nice girl, they abduct her, take her home, rape her and then she is the man’s wife. Of course, the families of the girls vigorously protest against this, because they feel it is not up to the men to decide to take the girl – it is up to her father to decide to give her away.

It was a heartbreaking documentary. It was shocking, and why? Because we feel that the choice of a partner, the choice of a husband or a wife is the most personal and intimate choice you can make in life. It is not for the man, not for your father, not for your brother – and certainly not for the state – to determine who will or will not be your partner.

We have seen in history, and we still see today, countries where the state bans marriage between black and white people. In my country, not very long ago – this was something my grandparents were confronted with – Catholics were not allowed to marry Protestants even if they loved each other. There are still conservative Muslims who feel their daughters should not marry non-Muslims. There are many examples like that and we feel that is very shocking. But we still have countries in the European Union that ban marriage between consenting adults of the same sex.

I know that for some people, it is very shocking that people of the same sex can love each other, but that is not really relevant. What is relevant here is that every single EU citizen should have the same rights. It is not for the European Union or for the Member State governments to judge a personal relationship.

The European Union has no competence in family law, but as Michael Cashman has just pointed out, there are five countries already which have opened their marriage laws to same-sex couples. There are a number of other countries which have some form of recognised partnership. The very least we should be doing in the European Union is apply the principle of mutual recognition. We do it for jam and wine and beer: why do we not do it for marriage and for relationships?

I would like to ask the Commission to take the initiative for mutual recognition between those Member States which already have marriage or some form of registered partnership and give us a roadmap on how we will get to a situation where those relationships will be recognised everywhere.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, it is clear that the right to free movement and residence of EU citizens and their family members is one of the cornerstones of the EU. It is not only a fundamental right but also a personal right.

Article 21 of the treaty is very clear and gives effect to that right. The ban on discrimination, including discrimination at the level of sexual orientation, is a cornerstone of the EU and is also recognised in another Article 21, but this time of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The directive has brought a very significant improvement for same-sex couples. I would like to thank Parliament, because it was Parliament which really pushed this through. EU law has provided, for the first time, for the right of both same-sex and different sex couples to move and reside freely within the European Union.

That said, it is implicit that if you are allowed to move freely and to reside freely, then you must also have the same rights at your second place of residence as you do at your first place of residence. It is for the Member States, as has been said, to decide whether or not they provide for registered partnerships or for a legal order, but what we are gradually seeing is more and more Member States moving in the direction of either recognising or allowing same-sex marriages.

The directive is very modern in that respect because it does not distinguish between same-sex couples and couples of the opposite sex. Actually, the directive is neutral on this. It allows such situations to happen and for couples to express themselves and to have this right. In that sense, it is not necessary to amend the directive.

How this directive is implemented in practical terms is another matter. The directive in itself is not the problem, but rather the interpretation of the directive. For the Commission, it is very clear that the directive must be applied with full respect for the principle of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The Commission has to ensure the correct application of EU law. This means the Commission has to monitor whether, in applying the directive, Member States respect fundamental rights, including the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation – the well-known Article 21 of the Charter.

The Commission attaches great importance to eliminating any obstacle restricting the right of free movement and residence, and will continue to work with Member States to make sure that the directive is applied correctly.

You will know that the Commission has adopted guidelines on better transposition of the directive. The guidelines are from July 2009, so we are now looking at the way Member States are applying those guidelines in practical terms.

The Commission welcomes the report on homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation issued by the Fundamental Rights Agency. That report (which was drawn up at Parliament’s request) provides comprehensive and important data on the human rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and trans-gender persons.

This data is needed, and I have asked the Agency to deepen research in this area – as I declared publicly during the International Day against Homophobia on 18 May – because we need to know what is going on in practice in the Member States. The forthcoming annual report on the application of the Charter, which is due in November, will deal with discrimination and homophobia. You can count on my determination to act within the framework of the powers that the treaty has entrusted to the Commission.

I am sure you understand that this is, for some Member States, a very delicate political and social question, because the way of looking at things is not the same all across Europe. However, the fact that more and more Member States are either recognising or applying marriages, irrespective of the sexual orientation of the partners, is a very good sign.

We have to advance step by step. We must, most of all on the basis of our guidelines, bring the Member States to accept these rules. For many, this is very new and very unusual. For some, it is very shocking. We have to advance cautiously, because what we do not want – and I believe all those who have spoken here of their experiences, from their hearts, understand this too – is not to be too harsh.

In saying this, I am not speaking about the basic values, which are not in question, but we have to bring resisting Member States, step by step, to accept the general rules. What we do not want is to have people starting to oppose same-sex marriages, the recognition of rights and non-discrimination.

Let us see, in the report, the details of how, in the different Member States and in different regions of the Member States, things are being applied. I do not want there to be any doubts about the fundamentals, about the rights of free movement, irrespective of sexual orientation or ethnicity. These we are going to apply step by step. We will come back to this.

Some Members have given a very personal insight, and I wish to thank them. It is very important for me to grasp the sensitive nature of this issue, which is not only a matter of principle but also a matter of human beings living their personal lives. Thank you for that. I am sure that together, we will manage to change the situation in the coming months and years.

  Salvatore Iacolino, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I listened with interest to those who spoke on a topic, a matter that is certainly distinctive and specific.

Unlike the debate that took place earlier, when we spent a long time on a topic that has been over-discussed and has little substance – that of freedom of expression in Europe – this is, without doubt, a topical and real issue.

I would point out that, some time ago, when the resolution on the Stockholm Programme was being approved, an amendment with characteristics essentially similar to the question we are discussing today was not approved in committee. This was probably because, with specific reference to the text of that resolution – in other words, that the national identity and sensibility of each Member State should be respected – the Commission’s viewpoint was the same as the one that recently informed the European Court of Justice, which stated, with reference to a specific case, that it is not an infringement of a right to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

I personally feel that certain fundamental positions should be guaranteed, because everything concerned with a person’s private and personal life should, in fact, be respected, but, at the same time, we must pay due attention to what Commissioner Reding said just now, namely that there must be a gradual shift, consisting of small concrete steps, towards recognition over time.

Much progress has been made, but we cannot ignore the concept of a family that is, in our view, a natural one, consisting of a man and a woman and the procreation of children, as opposed to another model, which we take due account of but which is not the one that, even today, most of the European Community think of as a family.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SK) I listened to your speech very closely and I really would like to applaud your sensitive choice of words and to say, perhaps only for the enlightenment of Mr Iacolino: we are not talking here about the European Parliament wanting to introduce or to order nation states to introduce registered partnerships. We are talking here about a completely different topic, we are talking about tolerance and about the fact that most host Member States do not recognise a marriage or a registered partnership which has been established legally – and I emphasise, legally – between citizens of the same gender. However, all the indications are that this amounts to a breach of the directive on the right to freedom of movement.

At first glance, this is a technical-legal problem, because the directive defines a family member of a citizen of the European Union as a spouse or partner with whom the citizen has established a registered partnership.

The first problem is that the free movement of registered partners is determined by whether the legislation of the host state considers the registered partnership to be equivalent to a marriage. If not, the directive will not be implemented in full, and their basic human rights are thereby restricted.

The second problem is that there is no consistency over whether the term ‘spouse’ or ‘partner’ also includes partners of the same gender. Despite the efforts of the European Parliament, the Commission has not resolved this uncertainty in the directive. Here we get to the essence of the matter. What appears to be a problem of a legal and administrative nature is in reality, as you yourself stated, a matter of political will.

I would like to believe that the Commission will interpret correctly the clear signal from most of the political groupings, because we have already squandered an opportunity with the action plan for the implementation of the Stockholm Programme, or rather the Commission has squandered it, but I hope that it will seize the earliest opportunity to implement the steps essential to eliminating all the potential uncertainties that are currently producing discrimination and a failure to fulfil the spirit of European human rights legislation.

  Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, some of the same features are in this debate as were in our earlier debate today on the expulsion of the Roma from France and, previously, from Italy. We have splendid principles in the treaties and legal instruments of the EU – non-discrimination, equality, rights of minorities, human dignity, the right to family life and the right of free movement – but their implementation in the Member States leaves much to be desired and falls short of these values and commitments. The problem is that the Commission, which is the watchdog and guardian of the treaties, all too often hesitates to pursue Member States for even quite serious and very serious breaches.

I am privileged to represent London, and therefore – I would say – one of the most progressive regions in Europe when it comes to gay rights. I am not claiming that my city, or even my country, is free of homophobic prejudice or discrimination – we do not yet have gay marriage – but we have made a lot of progress. But when my constituents with civil partnerships travel or move abroad within the EU, they lose their rights and legal status, as others have mentioned: inheritance, tax, social benefits, even the right to be treated as a partner are lost.

But the whole programme in an area that I work in a lot, which is European criminal justice, is rooted in the principle of cross-border mutual recognition – recognising and implementing legal decisions made in other EU Member States. So why not legal decisions on partnership or marriage, which is even more precise than the area of jam and widgets that my friend Sophie was talking about?

I therefore do not agree with Vice-President Reding, with respect, that the Free Movement Directive does not need amending. It does need amending, to remove the semi-discretion that Member States have to discriminate against couples where they are same-sex partners or spouses moving from another Member State. It therefore seems to me that we need action from the Commission. We have got to a sort of critical mass, even if one accepts this argument that you have to wait for social change. We have a critical mass of Member States which legally recognise same-sex couples.

It is time to introduce uniform treatment of those same-sex partners moving to another European country. In fact, a recent interesting judgment of the European Court of Human Rights suggested it might not be too long before that Court – the Court of the Council of Europe – insists that marriage be open to same-sex couples. It would be richly ironic if the EU had failed to act and we found ourselves upstaged by the Council of Europe when we claim to be the gold standard in our own self-definition compared to the Council of Europe.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I truly believe every word the Commissioner has said and that she personally believes in implementing the rights of movement of every European citizen, be they gay, lesbian, heterosexual or whatever, be they married or in a registered partnership or whatever.

The problem I have, as do all of us who have spoken, or at least most of us, is when you say that we need to go forward step by step, and that we need to make Member States understand, and convince them, and to work against prejudice. I know that is the case, but I also think that, in all EU countries, citizens are a lot further ahead than their governments.

Let me tell you about Warsaw EuroPride this year, which I went to. I walked with around 20 000 people – lesbian, gay, heterosexual, bisexual, transgender – through the main streets of Warsaw, with extremist demonstrators being pushed away by the police to the margins where they belong, and with lots of heterosexual citizens – such as women with their dogs watching from buildings – greeting us and saying that we, as lesbians and gays, were at the centre of society, in the mainstream. Those equal rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights that you have been rightly quoting are for all of us.

As Ms Ludford and so many others have said, we need the Commission to push forward and not to wait for Member States to slowly, maybe one day, do what they have to do for their citizens, for each and every one of us.

Let me give you my own example. For 17 years, it was not possible in my country for me to have a registered partnership with my partner, but it has now been possible for a couple of months. If I have to go and live in another country like Italy or Greece, I do not want to have to wait again until we can be recognised and, in difficult situations, be able to say that we are partners, we belong to each other and we want to care for each other. So please, push. There are many in this Parliament who want to push with you.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Member States apply the directive which has often been mentioned here in accordance with the principles of their own family law. It is hard to see how it could be any different. Otherwise, they would undermine their own sovereignty in the area of family law, and their sovereignty is confirmed by the treaties. I think the Commission can confirm this. Member States which do not allow same-sex partnerships cannot recognise such partnerships which have been registered in another Member State, and there is nothing unusual in this. I might as well demand, in this Chamber, that Polish or Irish abortion law be applied to Polish citizens when they are in Sweden or Great Britain. We do not feel, I think, that there is any reciprocity in such matters, and I do not suppose anyone here is calling for it. In addition, reference to the European system for protecting human rights is an exceptionally inappropriate argument. According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the lack of legal recognition of a same-sex partnership, and even more so of a same-sex marriage, does not constitute discrimination. For these reasons, this whole debate is, once again, a complete waste of time.

  Eva-Britt Svensson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) Madam President, to Mr Szymański, I would like to say that it is a question of discrimination. Commissioner Reding highlighted the cornerstones of the EU, namely free movement and fundamental rights. As far as Parliament is concerned, I am certain that the majority supports any work that is aimed at combating discrimination. That is worth our support.

Is it not also high time that the Commission took action to stop discrimination against people in same-sex marriages and civil partnerships? The question is relevant because it is emphasised in the Stockholm Programme that free movement is to apply to all citizens. All forms of discrimination must be avoided. Please note that this also includes discrimination on account of sexual orientation.

So far so good, but in the Commission’s Action Plan for the Stockholm Programme, we can find no measures for guaranteeing the same rights for people in same-sex marriages. Citizens who have entered into same-sex marriages in those countries in which it is permitted cannot wait any longer. They must have the same right to move to other Member States without being discriminated against in relation to a host of different civil rights.

We in Parliament and our citizens want an answer from the Commission, and I hope that it will be an answer that involves action being taken for the equal rights of all people, irrespective of sexual orientation.

  Oreste Rossi, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe cannot take the place of the sovereign people and force others to do what it does or does not want, because in case you are not aware, Europe has a motto: ‘Unity in diversity’; in other words, everyone is master of his own home.

The parliamentary questions being discussed today are very similar, and their aim is to ensure that the Commission imposes on Member States the obligation to recognise marriages between same-sex couples and prevent any form of discrimination with regard to adoption. The Lega Nord group cannot agree to the European Union taking over people’s right to safeguard their own cultures, traditions and roots.

Traditional marriage, in other words, between a man and a woman who perhaps bring children into the world, is the only form that can and must be recognised. Any other form of union between people of the same sex may exist but certainly cannot and must not be considered a marriage.

We are even more alarmed by the call from those who tabled questions for children to be adopted by same-sex couples. What upbringing could they receive? No one wishes to prevent homosexual couples from helping, for example, orphans or poor children by long-distance adoption, but, while it is one thing to help them grow up in their birth families or in their own countries, it is quite another to ask to adopt them.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Madam President, fellow Member, can you explain to me in what way it is detrimental to a couple made up of a man and a woman for a couple made up of two men or two women to have the same rights as them? In what way is it detrimental to a heterosexual couple for same-sex couples to have rights? Where is the threat? Where is the danger?

  Oreste Rossi, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is not a danger, it is something that, in the opinion of most Italians – and I speak for Italy – is unacceptable: it is different. For a couple to exist, live their lives peacefully and not ask for anything more, in the same way as a couple made up of a man and a woman – which, if possible, also has children, given that Europe continues to age – well, that is something different.

I have said this before: we believe that a couple that is entitled to a formal, official marriage must be made up of a man and a woman because they can procreate, and the ultimate aim of an ageing Europe is to produce children.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate lies at the basis of the European Community: the union of various communities, of various sensibilities and of different opinions. The ability to unite these different sensibilities lies at the basis of Europe and of the European Parliament, and so this debate, although difficult, is one we must have.

My attention was caught by something that Commissioner Reding said when she suggested that we must proceed with caution to prevent popular uprisings.

It is correct to give rights to all European citizens so that they can fight any discrimination and defend their freedom, but freedom belongs to everyone, including communities that have historically, for thousands of years, shared a concept of society that is based on the family, on the traditional family made up of a man and a woman. There must therefore be freedom to express the opinion that a family is a union between a man and a woman.

Everyone is clearly able to enter into different unions, but we cannot equate a family made up of a man and a woman, which ensures the continuation of the species, with other unions, however respectable they may be.

The debate must, of course, continue, because in a Europe that must be united in showing respect for all sensibilities, even such difficult, complicated and incendiary debates must seek a solution, but one that respects all communities. Because – and I am addressing Commissioner Reding here – we absolutely must not allow that phrase, ‘popular uprisings’, to undermine European unity.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). – (NL) Madam President, civil partnerships and marriages between same-sex partners are not legally recognised in all host Member States. This leads to multiple discrimination in the field of not only family matters such as custody and the right to inherit but also taxation affairs and social rights – as if these marriages and partnerships were less genuine or less important. The Action Plan proposed in the Stockholm Programme does not contain a proposal to solve this. There are no specific new initiatives for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights. Yet you have just spoken some fine words, saying that you intend to take action. This fills me with great pleasure. You spoke of specific steps – well, specific small steps – and of the need to proceed very cautiously when persuading certain Member States who have problems in this regard.

My first question is whether this will be happening before the end of your term of office. My second question is whether this kind of awkward situation also applies to other discrimination grounds, for example, race, disability and age. I believe that courage is needed in the case of all grounds, as they are all equal, and discrimination on all grounds must be fought effectively at the same time.

Allow me to make a suggestion. You said you were expecting a report by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights in November which also concerns homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. May I ask you whether, further to that report, which is to provide a reality check on the situation, you will be presenting a report to Parliament on your assessment of the situation and the specific steps, or preferably great strides, you mean to take?

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Madam President, I am lucky enough to come from a country that has made major progress in recent years on the issue of gay rights. It was also thought that Spain needed to move slowly and that its society was not yet ready to take that step. Nevertheless, we took it, and nothing has happened. Nothing has happened: and moreover, there is a much greater level of happiness because people have lost their fear.

Guaranteeing the right of people of the same sex to get married and make plans together does not force you to do it if you do not wish to. The fact that I can marry a man does not mean that you have to do so, but it gives me the right to do so. This is what gives us all the freedom to be able to clearly be a European Union that guarantees these principles and rights.

I am lucky enough to be able to do so, like other fellow Members. However, there are countries in the European Union where it is not possible, which is something that cannot be accepted in the European Union of today. We are asking the European Commission to show the same leadership that was shown in Spain when needed, and we ask you to promote this project in the European Union today as we do not see it in the Stockholm Programme Action Plan. We are asking you for a specific plan and for guarantees that this discrimination that we are seeing and talking about will never happen again.

As was demonstrated in Spain, this is only possible if there is political will. If you have that political will, we will be standing with you, but if you do no have it, we will be opposing you.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, I refer to my fellow Member’s speech and ask: if this possibility of being able to change were offered in Spain, and if the Spanish people accepted this change, why not respect the sensibilities of other countries that wish to adopt a different approach? Why impose your decisions on other countries, and offend the historical sensibility of other communities?

Europe is a set of communities, and if one of those does not understand the values of another, it can never really become Europe. Therefore, if we respect the choices that have been made in Spain, why can we not respect the choices of other communities?

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) The answer is because we are and we want to be European citizens. We must be able to move freely through the European Union with the same rights because it says so in the treaties. This is the basic principle, and the second element is also very simple: what we are saying is that there is no need to be afraid, because the societies that have historically been based on couples made up of a man and a woman are not being eroded. Do not worry, the world is still turning, and what is more, it is much happier.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D). – (PL) It is unacceptable that there are countries in Europe in which the rights of people who are married or are in a partnership differ depending on their sexual orientation. In some Member States, homosexual people cannot legalise their partnerships, and partnerships legally registered in other countries are not recognised. In Poland, even in the event of a tragedy such as the death of the person closest to you, a homosexual partner is treated as a second-class citizen. How can this consent to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation be brought to an end, since even in this Chamber, we sometimes hear scandalous, homophobic statements? Those who make them clearly are not aware that homophobia is an embarrassing disease which ought to be treated. Let us stop putting the citizens into categories of ‘worse’ and ‘better’. We all deserve equal rights to enter into legal partnerships, adopt children, work in our profession, have a fair education and not to have to hide our sexual preferences, and we are also entitled to love, pride and happiness.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, this debate demonstrates the way in which the argument of non-discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation is lumped together with the argument for free movement of workers, with a single aim: to force the Member States to make fundamental changes to their national traditions in the field of civil law, which governs the definition of the family.

The national parliaments respect the opinion of their citizens. For 80% of citizens, the family represents, first and foremost, a stable union between a man and a woman. This figure was published by Eurostat, but no one talks about it. If we talked openly about the fact that the vast majority of citizens today still support the family model based on marriage between a man and a woman, this debate would proceed differently.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Madam President, I would just like to ask Mrs Záborská whether she can accept that we are not talking about forcing Member States to change their marriage laws, but about obliging them to recognise the product of other countries’ laws on partnership and marriage. There is a fundamental difference.

This is about implementing the principle of mutual recognition. I would ask other speakers who have expressed somewhat similar sentiments to accept that we do now have a well-developed mutual recognition principle in many areas of EU life and competence.

That is the route we should take in the area of non-discrimination and free movement. It is not about forcing Member States to change their own marriage laws, but simply to recognise other countries’ marriage laws.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I will happily respond.

This may not be about changing the family code or family law in the Member States, but it is about changing the civil code. It is civil law which is to be changed in the Member States. Some changes are introduced by major laws, others by government regulations. However, the government and the parliament must respect the opinion of citizens, including when they adopt legislative acts which do not entirely relate to family law.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Madam President, I was not expecting to speak tonight. I had no intention of speaking and I do not have a prepared speech, but I thought I would say a few words.

As an openly gay person, I think it is the right of everyone to love who they want to love and to live the life they wish to live, whoever that may be with. What has been confirmed here tonight is how right I was to leave the EFD Group and their Fascistic views – for example, the 19th century views of their Italian group. I remind this Chamber that their mayor of Treviso said that homosexuals should be ethnically cleansed from their city.

As an openly gay person and as an openly gay politician, I have sometimes been a bit afraid to campaign for what I believe in with regard to equal rights for gay people. This is because I do not wish to be typecast. I wish to campaign for what I believe in. That surely is a discrimination that still affects our Member States.

Of course, if people join the European Union – there have been many referenda where people have acceded to the European Union – they have therefore acceded to these rights. Everyone knows that I am a believer in the Member State but – as Ms in ’t Veld said – this is beyond the Member State. This is about fundamental human rights. I think if you allow a country to join the European Union – much as I am opposed to it – they must accede to its rights. So when will you enforce these rights? Are we equal or are we not?

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Madam President, very briefly, I would like to put a question to my Italian colleague – I apologise for not knowing his name – who asked that other Member States accept the sensitivities of his country.

This debate is not about accepting the sensitivities of other countries; it is about accepting laws of other countries. And I would like to ask that colleague if he is willing to recognise the laws of other EU Member States?

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE). – (IT) It is sufficient to respond by citing the 2008 decision of the Court of Justice, which is absolutely at odds with what you have claimed and which offered Member States the possibility, in such situations, of legislating and not having to respect debates such as this.

I therefore refer back to the 2008 Court of Justice decision.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, for me it is easy, because the law is very clear. It is about non-discrimination, the right to free movement and mutual recognition.

Let me stress this. If you live in a legally-recognised same-sex partnership, or marriage, in country A, you have the right – and this is a fundamental right – to take this status and that of your partner to country B. If not, it is a violation of EU law, so there is no discussion about this. This is absolutely clear, and we do not have to hesitate on this.

This is the law today, and you can count on me to help you to enforce this. But wait, that is the law. The reality sur le terrain – in real terms – might be different, and we have to change this reality. This is the reason why I have said that we have these bilateral meetings at technical level with Member States in order to see how we can change their way of applying something which is very clear in legal terms. Permit me here to disagree with Baroness Ludford. We normally do agree in our analysis, but here, we do not.

The Free Movement Directive does not give the Member States discretion to discriminate – no EU directive does. We should not allow a mythology to be developed saying that, actually, it is possible to discriminate. We have to be very firm on the principles. I think here we agree again, do we not?

So for me there can be no discussion about the basis of what our legal system is and how it has to be interpreted. We will try to have this applied everywhere in the same way as it is written down, and here you find me on your side.

There was a question: when is this going to happen? Now! Not in five or 10 years. I do not know about a change of mentality in the different Member States. I can just tell you about the experience which I have as a politician over so many decades. Sometimes, governments are more cautious than their populations, and this has been said from personal experience in this Chamber. Sometimes, the population react in a very natural, relaxed way, and the government thinks that there is a very big problem.

What I try to do is to bring the governments to understand this. If there is no understanding, then more harsh measures have to be applied.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) No one can deny that non-discrimination is a core value. And no one can deny that the choice of your partner comes within the sphere of personal freedom, but in this case, Europe is interfering where it has no business to be. For us, as sanctioned by the Italian constitution, the family is based on marriage between a man and a woman. This is the underlying principle of our legal system, which reflects the culture, traditions and sensibilities of the Italian people. We must also remember that according to the principle of subsidiarity – reinforced by the Treaty of Lisbon – the European Union cannot intervene in matters that fall within the remit of Member States, such as family law. Article 9 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights indeed states that ‘the right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights’. The individual States are therefore responsible for this matter. Every nation is entitled to safeguard its national identity and convictions in respect of all other nations in the international community. This very sentiment is expressed by the European Union motto, unity in diversity.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The legal framework on same-sex couples within the European Union is very diverse and radical differences exist between different Member States. Episodes of discrimination against same-sex couples occur virtually on a daily basis, hence the need to ensure respect for Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC on combating discrimination based on religion, disability and sexual orientation. The European Union must make more effort to guarantee same-sex couples the same rights granted to heterosexual couples when they move to another Member State in the European Union to study or work, by virtue of the directive on the free movement of European citizens.