Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-14-Speech-3-048"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-06-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European political parties2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000614.3.3-048"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-06-14-Speech-3-0492
lpv:speaker	lp:Olivier Dupuis2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2000-01-17--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Lista Emma Bonino (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; TGI (1999-07-20--2001-10-02)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Seppänen, Mr Brok and Mr Vanhecke because I think that contrary to what the Chairman of the Liberal Group has told us, the key point has not been stressed. The key point – and there is a high degree of unanimity on this within the Chamber – is money. It is the spoils that our friends at the back are already looking to share out amongst themselves. It is the institution of a European system of public financing and it is not therefore the strengthening of democracy but of ‘partiocracy’, which in many Member States has already caused the damage we are all familiar with. That is my first point. The second key point – and this has probably gone somewhat over Mrs Maes’s head – is that we would be able to create new rules for bureaucracy which would then allow us to discriminate against one party or another, not on the basis of criminal laws or an infringement of such laws, but on the basis of new, discretionary rules and therefore – because this is what you want, Mrs Maes – to make it an offence to express an opinion. At this point, I doubt – judging by the number of mouths that are watering here – that we have the majority that is required to reject this motion, to reject this institutionalisation of bureaucracy, which is becoming more and more pervasive within Parliament. I think that the public should be made aware of this: what is being proposed to us today is not a Europe of the citizens but a Europe of the taxpayers, whom we are once again going to bleed dry in order to allow bureaucracy to proliferate in the future. This is a long way from what a democracy should be and, in my opinion, we must condemn this initiative. Political parties are associations and perhaps they should simply publish their budgets. It is true that this is not done at national level, but perhaps we should begin to move in that direction so that, from now on, we know what they are doing with their money."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"de facto"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph