Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-103"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public access to documents2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010502.7.3-103"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-02-Speech-3-1042
lpv:speaker	lp:Jens-Peter Bonde2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; JuniBevægelsen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I cannot support the new rules concerning transparency because they impose a common limit upon transparency and open the way to directly retrograde steps. Documents which are at present in the public domain may be classified tomorrow. Documents which may at present be made available in Copenhagen or Stockholm may tomorrow be classified throughout the EU. At present, we in practice operate with common minimum rules governing transparency. It is possible for those countries that wish to do so to go further. The EU Regulation makes the rules the same in every country. That is good for consistency but bad for transparency. The Member States will now be obliged to conform to the common rules and consult the EU authorities before they make documents available. We are now to be given common maximum rules on transparency. Just look at recitals 9a and 12, which exclude better national legislation, and Article 4a of the Regulation in which the Member States are obliged to consult the EU. See also recital 5a concerning the actual decision-making process, recital 7 concerning countries’ right to classify documents, recital 9 concerning personal information which, for example, makes it more difficult to know who sits on the 1 500 committees, and Article 6a, Paragraph 3 which excludes sensitive information from the registers. See the text on euobserver.com, if you do not have it in your briefcases. Transparency and the new ceiling are accompanied by a new procedure in which three opponents of transparency such as France, Spain and Germany are able to block progress on transparency, even if the whole of the European Parliament and twelve national parliaments are in agreement concerning a little more transparency. At present, progress can be made by means of pressure from the ombudsman, decisions by the Court of Justice or a simple majority in the Council of Ministers, that is to say eight out of fifteen countries. From tomorrow, any progress will require 62 out of 87 votes in the Council, and the Court of Justice and the countries in favour of transparency will not be able to help us obtain clear rules in the Regulation. It would be in the greater interests of transparency if we were to defer the decision today and see how the Council and the Commission are to interpret the new rules. The various forms of progress have, of course, been decided upon ..."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut the speaker off)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph