A divided assembly

Measures to curb discrimination, free circulation of citizens in the EU, condemnation of every form of totalitarianism: the European Parliament, meeting in plenary in Brussels on 1-2 April, tackled various questions, on some of which the debate was heated. It revealed divergences between the political forces, especially when it came to voting on reports and resolutions.A controversial report. “The present directive establishes a general framework for measures to combat discrimination on grounds of religion or personal convictions, disability, age and sexual orientation, with the aim of rendering effective in member states the principle of equality of treatment also in fields other than those of employment”: so reads article 1 of a proposed directive of the European Council. The proposed directive, drafted by the Commission, is the competence of the Council of the member states of the EU, while the European Parliament is being merely consulted. The directive’s declared objectives include the determination to “increase the protection again all forms of discrimination” and “improve social inclusion”. The text, including the almost 100 amendments presented, however, risks invading some fields that are exempted from EU law or prejudicing national legislations on such issues as the relations between Church and State, family law and education. The heated debate in the chamber preceded the vote in which the EP was split: the report of the Dutch MEP Kathalijne Buitenweg was in fact passed with 363 votes in favour, 226 against and 64 abstentions. Circulation of citizens. The report asks that “regulations on the obligations of the banks and insurance companies when they discriminate on the basis of age be spelt out”. The document on anti-discrimination further insists on the rights of the disabled and pronounces on criteria for admission to faith schools. However, MEPs expressed the hope that “national provisions on the family, the secular nature of the State, and education” would be excluded from the directive. The directive also insists that the task of rendering effective the forms of financial compensation for the victims of discrimination is the responsibility of national governments. A long and heated discussion was also generated by the report signed by Adina Valean (Romania) on the right of European citizens to circulate freely in the Union. This right, said the rapporteur, “is not applied in a uniform way in the various member states”, many of which “have laws that hamper its exercise”. The Parliament asks “for the definition of common guidelines on the reasons that justify the sending away of an EU citizen” (e.g. minimum financial resources, excessive burden on public welfare or on public order) and on the free circulation of homosexual couples. The Parliament asks the Commission to prepare a directive that would render homogeneous the application of these rights in the 27 member states. The EP also asks States to accept that the directive would make it obligatory to recognize the free circulation of all EU citizens (including, explicitly, homosexual couples), “without imposing the recognition of marriages between persons of the same sex”.Migrants and schooling. The increase of migration within and towards the European Union “is changing the composition of schools in many places”. This “may be enriching in terms of culture and education”, but the cultural differences “often hamper understanding and dialogue between pupils, as well as between pupils and teachers” and, “in the absence of measures of suitable accompaniment”, this phenomenon “may give rise to serious divergences”, says Hannu Takkula, Finnish MEP, who signed the report on access to schools and ways of providing education to the children of immigrants. The report insists on the “need for greater efforts at the EU level to tackle this challenge”. According to Takkula, “an inclusive educational policy needs to be implemented, avoiding the creation of special classes” for the children of immigrants. Further requirements are to “guarantee the teaching of the language of the host country and provide teachers with specific intercultural training”. Coming to terms with history. “Europe will not be united until it is able to achieve a common view of its own history”, “recognize Nazism, Stalinism and the fascist and communist regimes as a common legacy of the past, and begin an honest and far-reaching debate on the crimes they perpetrated in the last century”. That’s a passage from a resolution approved by the Parliament in Brussels, aimed at condemning the crimes committed by all Europe’s totalitarian regimes. The EP emphasizes “the success of European integration” and its aim of building a peaceful and democratic Europe in which civil liberties and citizens’ rights be fully respected. The document cites some events of the twentieth century, such as the Holocaust, the Soviet Communist regime, the “fascist” regimes in Greece, Spain and Portugal. MEPs insist on the need to “keep alive the memories of the past”, though without “imposing a political interpretation” on the facts.