Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.8.2-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The European Parliament has just adopted what appears to be a highly commendable report on the list of its documents that are directly accessible to the public. But although transparency appears to be respected, there is creeping censorship at various stages of parliamentary work.
For example, written explanations of vote must, in theory, be no more than 200 words, as stated in the Rules of Procedure, but this word limit has not always been strictly enforced in order to allow Members to express their opinions fully and clearly. This tolerant attitude seems to be frowned upon in some quarters: despite the fact that the European institutions often spend money as if there is no tomorrow, Parliament has recently decided to save money on paper and ink by cutting 100 words here, 50 words there of Members’ explanations of vote.
In the Minutes of the sitting of 25 April 2002, I drew attention to instances where my explanations of vote had been shortened.
We must simply bear in mind that the Union spends a considerable amount subsidising associations which merely serve to spread propaganda pure and simple. It obviously prefers to listen infinitely to servile associations, rather than find out the opinions of the representatives elected by the people. We are seeing a whole programme of ‘new governance’ taking shape before our very eyes."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples