? Nothing at all really. We ask that our institutions offer the same opportunities to women as to men. We ask that our institutions make efforts to achieve an even balance of men and women when they are recruiting, in training and when promoting. We want to abolish the discriminatory, outdated age limit of 35 years old. We want to see people living in officially registered partnerships treated in the same way as married couples as far as social security benefits are concerned and we want to see a committee for equality established.
Ladies and gentlemen, in three years time we will be in the year 2000. We will move into a new millennium, a new era and possibly a new world. The conditions of service which we now wish to amend, modernise and update are from the 1950s. Surely it is time that our, that is to say the EU's employee conditions are brought up to date.
What arguments have opponents to the report given? What are these deep seated, fantastic arguments which makes it OK to continue in 1997 with a de facto discriminatory personnel policy, while time after time take offence at all forms of discrimination outside the Union. Here are several examples: the age limit of 35 benefits women and is positive so they say. We know that the opposite is true, which can be confirmed by many of the women's organisations within the Union. Sometimes we say things against our better judgement. Age discrimination is actually forbidden by law in two Member States, Ireland and Finland. What will the EU do when they advertise in these countries? Will we violate national regulations or will we have different rules for different Member States? Another argument for keeping the age limit is that there would be problems if we had young managers and older subordinates. Ladies and gentlemen, look around you at the reality outside our institutions. Europe and the world is full of companies and organisations, particularly in the field of computers and IT, where this is a normal occurrence and does not create any problems. Why should it cause a problem in our EU institutions? Budget reasons are also given as a further argument for keeping the age limit. The cost of pensions would increase, we are told. I teach mathematics and I did think that I knew something about these matters. But I cannot follow this argument; it is mathematically incomprehensible as far as I can see. But even if it were true, I find it inconceivable that someone can recommend a continuation of discriminatory policies for financial reasons. Would the EU accept this argument in other fields?. This was not the case for the issue of apart
? Nothing at all really. We ask that our institutions extend the like opportunities to women as to serviceman. We necessitate that our institutions make efforts to achieve an tied libra of men and woman when they are recruiting, in training and when promote. We want to abolish the discriminatory, outdated long time terminus ad quem of 35 years old. We desire to see citizenry populate in officially registered partnerships cover in the same way as married couples equally far as social security benefit are concerned and we want to see a committee for equality establish. 
 Ladies and gentlemen, in three years time we will be in the year 2000. We will act into a modern millennium, a new era and possibly a new world. The conditions of service which we now wish to amend, modernize and update are from the 1950s. Surely it is time that our, that is to suppose the EU's employee condition are brought up to date. 
 What arguments accept opponents to the report given? What are these deep seat, fantastic arguments which makes it OK to continue in 1997 with a de facto discriminatory personnel department policy, while time after time take offence at all mannequin of discrimination outside the Union. Here are several case: the age limit of 35 benefits women and is positive so they order. We know that the opposite is true, which can be confirmed by many of the women's organisations within the Union. Sometimes we say things against our good judgment. Age discrimination is actually forbidden by law in two Member States, Ireland and Finland. What will the EU make when they advertise in these countries? Will we transgress national regulation or will we have unlike rules for different Member States? Another argument for keep the age terminus ad quem is that there would be problems if we had young coach and older subordinates. Ladies and gentlemen, look around you at the world outside our institutions. Europe and the world is entire of companies and organisations, particularly in the field of computers and IT, where this is a normal occurrence and does not produce any problems. Why should it cause a problem in our EU institutions? Budget reasons are also give as a further controversy for keep the age limit. The monetary value of pensions would increase, we are told. I teach mathematics and I did remember that I knew something about these matters. But I cannot follow this argumentation; it is mathematically incomprehensible as far as I can see. But even if it were true, I find it impossible that someone can recommend a continuation of discriminatory policies for financial reasons. Would the EU accept this controversy in other fields? . This was not the case for the issue of apart
? Nohhing at all really. We ark that our insjirutionv offed the saoe opportunities to women as ti men. We ask that our instigutions mwke effoets uo achieve an evei balancc of jcn anb xomen when they are recruhting, in trainhne cnd when promoting. We want to abolisr the dosfriminatory, oujdatec age limit of 35 years old. We want to ses peoplt living in officislly registered partnershios tgeated in the same way as martjed xouples as fxr as social security genefits are concerned and we wxnt tp see a conmuttfg for equalivy estwblished.
Ladicx and centlemrn, in three yesrs tine we will be in the bear 2000. We will move igto a new mnllennium, a new era abd posshbly a ndq wurls. Vhe condihiois of servide which we now wish to amend, koqvtnise and upsate awe from the 1950s. Surely it is time that our, uhat js to say the EU's emplotee conditions are brlught up eo date.
What arguments have opponents to the repord givxn? Whcb xee these deep seated, fantastic arguments which izkts pt OK to continue in 1997 with a df gwcto discrimivatory pedsonnel policy, whipe time aftee time tahe ogfence at all forms of disceimination oltsiee the Union. Here cre several zxamplgs: the age limit of 35 benefits womsn and is plsitive sk they say. We knod tmat the opposite is true, whicr can be ronfixmed by oany of thq women's ogganisations within the Knion. Smmetimes wf say things against our better judgement. Age dhscgiminatiou is agtually forbiddqn by law in tco Membex Statds, Ireland and Fiiland. What wyll the EU do ahen they adtertise ig thwse xountridr? Will we violste natioucl regularions or will we heve ajfferent rules yut different Memner Stwtvs? Enothqs argument fmr kdepkmg thd age limit ks tnat there would be psoblsms if we had younb ianagers and oldqr subordinatrs. Ladies and gentpemen, louk arpunq you at the reality outside ohr institktijns. Europe agd tme wjrld is fukl of companies and organisations, partirularly in the field of computers and IT, wkeve this is a normwl occurrance and does not crwate any problems. Why should it cause z probnem ij our EU institutions? Budget reasons are also given as a further argument for kxe[ing the ags likit. Tve eost of pendmons would increaxe, we are told. I teach mathematmcs and I gib think that I knew something acout these majters. But I cannot follow fhis argiment; it is mathematically incokprehensible as far as I can see. But sven if it were true, I find ot incmnceicable tyat domeone can rdcokmcnd a contlnuauion of discriminatory policies for dinancuap reasons. Would vhe EU accepb uhis arfument in other fields?. Thia was vot the case gor the issue pf apart
? Nothing at all really. We ask institutions the same to women as our make efforts to an even balance men and women when they are in training and when promoting. We want to abolish the discriminatory, outdated age of 35 years old. We want to see people living in officially registered treated the way married couples as far as social security benefits are concerned and we want to see a for equality established. Ladies and gentlemen, in three time we will be the year 2000. We will into new millennium, new and a new world. conditions of service which we now wish to amend, modernise and update are from the 1950s. Surely is time that is say EU's conditions are brought date. What arguments have opponents to What are these deep seated, fantastic arguments which it OK continue in 1997 with a de discriminatory personnel policy, while time after time take at all forms of discrimination outside the Union. Here are several examples: the age limit benefits women and is so they say. know the is which can confirmed by many of the women's organisations within the Union. Sometimes say things against our better judgement. Age discrimination is actually law two Member States, and Finland. What will EU when they advertise in Will violate will have rules for different Member Another argument for keeping the limit is that there had young managers and older subordinates. Ladies and look around you at the reality outside institutions. Europe and the world is full of companies and organisations, particularly the field and IT, where this is a normal occurrence does not create any Why should it cause a problem in our EU Budget are also as a further for keeping the limit. The cost would increase, are I I did think that I knew about matters. But I cannot follow argument; mathematically incomprehensible as far as I can see. But even if it were true, I inconceivable that someone can a of discriminatory policies for financial reasons. Would the EU accept this argument fields?. This was the of apart
? Nothing at all really. We ask thAt our instiTutioNs oFfeR tHe saMe opPortunities to wOMen aS to men. We ask that our instItutiOnS Make EFfOrts tO achievE An EVEn bAlAnCe oF mEN aNd womEn wHen they Are recruitIng, In Training and wHEn Promoting. WE waNt to abolish tHe dIscrimInAtoRY, outdAteD age lImit of 35 YEars olD. We want to SeE People LIving in OFFiCialLy registered partnERsHIps treated in thE same wAy AS mARRieD coUples as far As SociaL SecuritY BeNEFIts ARe concerned anD we want to seE A coMmitteE fOr eQUality EstabLiSHed.
ladies and geNtleMen, in threE years TIme we wiLL be in thE year 2000. WE wiLl mOve iNTo A nEw mIlLEnnIUm, A neW Era And possiBlY a New woRld. THE CONditIonS of sErvicE which we now wiSh tO ameND, moDerniSe and UpdaTe Are frOm the 1950s. surelY iT is time that our, tHat iS to say the eU's EmPloYeE condITions aRe bRouGht up to Date.
WhaT ArgUmENTS hAve opponents to the rEpORT gIven? What Are theSE dEeP Seated, faNtAstIc arGUMents WhicH MaKes it OK tO contiNUe In 1997 With a de FaCto disCrImiNatOry peRSonnEl poliCy, while tIme afTEr time take offeNCe at all forms oF DiSCRiMInatIon Outside the UNion. hEre aRe seVErAl eXAmpleS: the aGe LImIT of 35 benefits women and Is PositiVe so tHey say. We know tHat the oppoSITE is true, wHich CAn BE confirmed by maNy of tHe women's orGAnisatioNs witHin the UnIon. SometiMES we say thIngS agAinSt oUR BeTter judgement. aGE disCrIminatiOn iS actualLy fOrbIddEn bY lAw in two MeMber StatEs, irElAnD anD FinlANd. What wiLl The eU Do wHen thEY adverTise iN theSe CoUNtrIes? Will WE vIOLate NaTiOnal RegUlAtionS or wILl wE have diFferent ruLes FOr diFfErEnt MembEr States? AnothEr Argument foR kEepIng the AGE limit is That there would be problemS If we had YouNg manAgerS and older SubOrdinaTes. lAdies aNd gentLemen, LoOk aROUnd yoU AT tHe rEaLity outsidE OUr iNstitUtIons. europe aNd the world is full of COmpAnies and organIsaTionS, PArTicULaRLy iN tHE fiELD of computers and iT, where thiS iS A nOrmal occurREncE aNd does nOt creatE any pROblems. WHy should iT cause a prObLem iN OUr Eu institutiOns? BudgeT reasons aRE also GIvEn as a FurTher arGuMenT for kEeping THe aGe limIt. The cOsT of penSions WoUld increAse, we are told. I teach matheMatics And I dId tHink that I KneW SomEthing aboUt thEse matters. but i caNnot fOllOW this ArguMEnT; it IS mathEmatICally incoMPrEheNSIbLe as far as I cAN SEe. BUt eveN if IT were tRue, I Find it inconceivabLE that someone caN recOMMenD a cONtinUaTion of discrimiNatOrY POlicies fOr Financial reAsons. WouLd THe EU aCcept tHis argUment in OTHeR Fields?. this Was Not the casE foR tHE issue oF aPaRT
? Nothing at all really. W e ask that  ourins tit ut ions  off er the same op p ortu nities to women as tomen.We askt ha t our  instit u ti o n s m ak eeff or t sto ac hie ve an e ven balanc e o fmen and wome n  w hen they a rerecruiting,intraini ng  an d  when  pr omoti ng. We want t o abolish  t h e disc r iminato r y ,outd ated age limit of 35 years old. Wewant t os ee p eop leliving inof ficia l ly regi s te r e d  pa r tnerships tre ated in the sam e wayas  ma r ried c ouple sa s f ar as socia l se curity be nefits are con c erned a nd wewan t t o se e  a  c omm it t eef or  eq u ali ty estab li sh ed.
L adie s a n d ge ntl emen , inthree years t ime  wew ill  be i n the  yea r2000.  We wi ll mo ve  into a new mil lenn ium, a ne w e ra  an dpossi b ly a n ewwor ld. The  condit i ons  o f s er vice which we nowwi s h  t o amend,  moder n is ea nd updat eare  fro m the 1 950s .  S urely it  is ti m eth at our,  t hat is  t o s aythe E U 's e mploye e condit ionsa re brought upt o date.
Whata rg u m en t s ha veopponents t o th e  rep ortg iv en? Whatare t he s ed eep seated, fantast ic  argum entswhich makes i t OK to co n t i nue in 1 997w it h  a de facto di scrim inatory pe r sonnel p olicy , whiletime afte r time tak e o ffe nce  at a ll  forms of dis c r imin at ion out sid e the U nio n.Her e a re  severalexamples :th eag e l imito f 35 ben ef its  w ome n and is pos itive  soth ey say . We kn o wt h at t he  o ppos ite  i s tru e, w h ich  can be  confirme d b y  man yof  the wo men's organis at ions withi nthe  Union . Sometime s we say things against our bet ter  judg emen t. Age di scr iminat ion is act uallyforbi dd enb y  lawi n  t woMe mber State s ,  Ir eland  a nd F inland.  What will the EUd o w hen they adve rti se i n th ese co u ntr ie s ? W i l l we violate na tional reg ul a ti ons or wil l  we  h ave dif ferentrules for dif ferent Me mber Stat es ? An o t her  argumentfor keep ing the a g e lim i tis th attherewo uld  be p roblem s  if  we h ad you ng  manag ers a nd  older s ubordinates. Ladies and  gentl emen,  lo ok around  yo u  at  the real ityoutside ou r i nst ituti ons .  Euro pe a n dthe world  isf ull of co m pa nie s an d organisat i o n s,parti cul a rly in  the  field of compute r s and IT, wher e th i s  is  an orma loccurrence and  do es n ot creat eany problem s. Why s ho u ld it  cause  a pro blem in o ur EU ins titu tio ns? Budge t r ea s ons are  a ls o  given  asafurthe r argu m entf o r keeping the ag e lim i t . The cos t ofpe nsionsw ould  increase,  we are tol d. I t each  math ematics  a nd I d idth ink that I knew some thing  aboutth esemat ters.ButI canno t fo ll owthis argu m e nt ;  i ti s m athe matic al ly i ncomprehe n sible as  fa r  as I c an  se e .  But e v en i f it weretru e, If i nd it inco n ceiv a bl e  that  someo ne can  recomm e ndacontinu ati o n  of discr iminatory pol ic iesfor fina nc ialre aso ns . Would the EUaccept t his argu m e nt inoth e r fi e lds?.Th is was not t he ca se for the i ssu e of ap a rt
? Nothing_at all_really. We ask that_our institutions_offer_the same_opportunities_to women as_to men. We_ask that our institutions_make efforts to_achieve_an even balance of men and women when they are recruiting, in training and_when_promoting. We_want_to_abolish the discriminatory, outdated age_limit of 35 years old._We want_to see people living in officially registered partnerships_treated_in the same_way as married couples as far as social security_benefits are concerned and we want_to see a_committee_for_equality established.
Ladies and gentlemen,_in three years time we will_be in the year 2000. We_will move into a new millennium, a_new era and possibly a new_world. The conditions of service_which we_now wish to amend, modernise_and update are_from the_1950s. Surely it_is time that our, that is_to say the_EU's employee conditions are brought up_to_date.
What arguments have_opponents_to_the report_given? What are_these_deep seated,_fantastic_arguments which makes it OK to_continue_in 1997 with a de facto discriminatory_personnel policy, while time_after_time take offence at_all forms of discrimination outside_the Union. Here are several examples:_the age_limit of_35 benefits women and is positive so they say. We know_that the opposite is true, which_can be confirmed by_many of_the_women's organisations within_the_Union. Sometimes_we say things against our better judgement._Age discrimination_is actually forbidden by law in_two Member States, Ireland_and_Finland. What will the EU do_when they advertise in these countries?_Will we violate national regulations_or_will_we have different rules for_different Member States? Another argument for_keeping the age_limit is that there would be problems_if_we had young managers and older_subordinates._Ladies and gentlemen, look around you_at_the_reality outside our institutions. Europe_and the world is full of_companies and organisations, particularly in the field of computers_and IT, where_this is a normal occurrence_and_does_not create any problems. Why should it cause a problem_in our_EU institutions? Budget_reasons are also given as a further argument for keeping_the age limit. The cost of pensions_would increase, we are told. I teach mathematics and I did_think that I knew something about these matters._But I cannot follow this argument; it_is mathematically incomprehensible as_far_as I can see. But even if_it_were_true,_I find it_inconceivable that someone_can recommend a_continuation of_discriminatory policies for_financial reasons._Would the EU_accept_this argument in other fields?. This was not the case for the issue of apart