Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-27-Speech-3-102"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-10-27"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Votes2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991027.3.3-102"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-1032
lpv:speaker	lp:Lousewies van der Laan2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-09-13--2003-01-29)3 vice-chair; CONT (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Democraten 66 (1999-07-20--2003-01-29)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, on behalf of our group I just wanted to explain why we voted against the report. The European group of liberals and democrats always felt that the Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo should be based in Priština and only in Priština and should not, in some way or other, be linked with or part of, or work in tandem with, some other agency in Thessaloniki. We believe that this is the only logical position and it is also the only position that is in the interests of the Kosovars themselves. In view of the fact that the original text from the Commission is very clear in this respect and Mrs Pack’s amendment adding the Thessaloniki aspect is superfluous, our group has opted to vote against the report. What I do want to make clear is that our group does support this Parliament’s position when it comes to improving the efficiency of the agency’s management and the procedures, and of course when it comes to making the agency subject to OLAF’s supervision; indeed how could it be otherwise for I penned these amendments myself. Consequently, we are particularly pleased that the Commission is to adopt many of these amendments. The specific answers that Mr Patten has just given this Parliament are, however, in stark contrast with the overwhelming silence on the part of the Council. The Council has systematically refused to enter into constructive dialogue with this Parliament about the content of the report. We consider this attitude unacceptable and, as far as that is concerned, we are particularly keen to support the position adopted by Mrs Pack, who endeavoured to delay this report up until the very last moment. I would just like to clearly point out – sadly the Council is not present – that Parliament will, of course, have the last word on this matter under the terms of Budget 2000. To sum up, Madam President, as a group we were faced with what was in fact a difficult dilemma in that we had to decide whether to vote for a report that went some of the way towards accommodating our concerns but not on that one essential point, namely Priština. That is why we opted for clarity and consistency at the end of the day and voted against the report."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph