Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.7.3-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, there is something we should all be aware of: there is not necessarily a huge gulf between the views of the Council and Parliament and between the views of the members of the Council and the Members of this Parliament on the advantages or disadvantages of transparency. People sometimes get the idea that the Council is the place where issues are dealt with in an opaque way and that Parliament is where they are dealt with in a transparent way. This is not true. We share your concerns about the way the institutions operate and the effects that this can have externally. We therefore have the same concerns and interpret fundamental principles in the same way.
What may be true, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, is that occasionally we do not have the same views on the exact way in which the transparency process itself may or may not work in terms of genuine transparency. By this I mean that it is often dangerous to imagine that publishing a certain kind of document or that ensuring transparency in some of the institutions are factors that will improve the democratic nature of these institutions, because in reality this is frequently not the case. We know – and I do not want to go into this in any great depth – that when, on occasion, transparency exceeds certain limits, we automatically end up with informal conversations and deals being made behind the scenes. We must strike an overall balance on transparency and this balance lies exactly halfway between realism and rhetoric."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples