Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-208"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.9.2-208"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Well, that really takes the biscuit! That is probably one of the most ridiculously evasive answers I have heard in a very long time. Mr Kinnock says that we would have known what the letter contained if we had been able to study it. Marvellous, if we only get to see it after the debate! I applied to Mr Kinnock’s office so as to be able to study the letter before the debate, but I was told that I could possibly get to examine it
the debate.
That only goes to show that Mr Kinnock has not understood in the slightest what openness really means. Mr Kinnock appears not to have learned anything from the scandal involving the Commission to which he previously belonged – the Santer Commission, which fell because it did not understand the link between transparency, on the one hand, and corruption and fraud, on the other. If Mr Kinnock had learned anything from the Commission to which he then belonged, he would have understood. I refer to the type of threatening letter which he obviously wrote and which Mrs Gradin understood as such, to judge from the statements she made to the Swedish press.
Mrs Gradin must surely have read the letter before she made her statement. In the same way, Mr Asp must surely have read the letter before he made his statement. They no doubt knew, in any case, what the letter contained, and they obviously perceived it as a threat. It does in fact dishonour Parliament and is an insult to this House to turn tail and evade responsibility, as Mr Kinnock is now doing."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples