Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-035"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-11-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001116.2.4-035"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-11-16-Speech-4-0362
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 co-chair; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-01-29)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there is no trace of the ‘Europe of the citizens’ rhetoric that we hear so much about in the restrictive rules governing access to documents proposed by the Commission and the Council. Do these institutions want to bring the citizens closer to Europe? Their attitude would suggest a propensity towards the centralisation of power. Why did they opt for a regulation? Surely this is about documents belonging to the institutions? And why have access exemptions been formulated so broadly? One thing is for sure, now that unanimity is no longer required in the Council, the only possibility of redressing the balance rests with Parliament. Fortunately, the Cashman/Maij-Wegen report represents an attempt to compile a document which lays down the citizen’s right to access to documents, and not the right of institutions to impose restrictions. But Parliament is no stranger to these little power games either. For example, the report contains amendments about the right of the institutions to classify documents as secret or public. These are amendments that are mainly geared towards increasing our own influence. But does this subject actually belong in a regulation on the right of the public to have access to documents? Besides, Parliament’s passion for regulation, as borne out by so many amendments, will result in a regulation that is difficult to implement. And bear in mind that transparency and openness, which are necessary to guarantee the involvement of the citizens, would be best served by the exact opposite, i.e. a clear and simple regulation. That is certainly what we as a Parliament should stick to."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph