Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.4.3-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing with a never-ending story here. This House has been considering the Members’ Statute since 1998. I think it is high time we brought it to an end. We are virtually at the end of a legislative period and we also have enlargement ahead of us. I believe the legal position of the Members of this House needs to be settled now once and for all. Of course, we also need an official response from the Council to the proposals made by official bodies of this House.
That is why this time I would like to see on our desks not only a well-meaning letter from our President, but also a definite statement from the Council. That is the purpose of this oral question and the resolution that accompanies it.
The question of the transparency of costs is raised again and again. But it is not the subject of this resolution. It is perfectly clear that we want transparency, and it is also perfectly clear that our presidency will of course submit fresh proposals for the reimbursement of costs if we get the Statute. I take that as read and that is the subject of all the motions for a resolution that are here on the table.
The Rothley report, which was initially adopted by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs as an opinion for our President and the Conference of Presidents, is the only document in this House to contain a really comprehensive proposal for a Members’ Statute. We have been waiting for a response from the Council since April this year and that is why we believe this oral question is now necessary. It is high time.
This proposal of Mr Rothley’s is a very balanced one. We were guided by the submissions made by the wise men who were appointed to make concrete proposals to us. We have come to the conclusion that we ought to receive as salary one half of the basic salary of a European judge. I believe everything about this plan is well balanced.
I find it all the more regrettable that three group chairmen this morning issued a press release on this important question, which really depends on a consensus in this House; I think that was completely intolerable. There was quite an obvious contradiction between the claims that were falsely made there this morning and what is actually contained in the resolution.
I would, however, point out that there is only one major difference between the motions before us here, namely the reference, in paragraph 2 of our motion for a resolution, to the Committee on Legal Affairs’ April decision, because we want the Council to adopt a clear position on this document. Everything else is virtually identical in content. I therefore fail completely to understand why it was claimed this morning that the large groups would oppose the statute and wanted to fill their pockets. That is certainly not the case and it is improper to say so in that way in this House or at a press conference. I would like to make that very clear at this point.
In this House, there is no room for cheap populism. The large groups have a responsibility for this entire House and we are trying to fulfil it. This oral question and this resolution have again been put on the agenda so that we can make progress in the debate about the Statute, not to hinder it.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have been negotiating now for nearly five years, and we cannot continue any longer in a situation where the Council leads Parliament a dance like a bear with a ring through its nose in a circus arena. It must be clear by now what the Council wants. If we know what the Council wants, we shall also be able to arrive at a sensible Statute in the ensuing discussions in the Committee on Legal Affairs in the actual legislative process under Article 190 (5).
I hope that Mr Haarder, who after all was once a colleague of ours, has sat in this House and knows the problems and who was also formerly involved in the work on drafting the Statute, will now be in a position to give Parliament a clear, positive signal on behalf of the Danish Presidency.
What I consider unacceptable is that we should have a repeat of what has already happened with the Swedish and Belgian Presidencies. Let me remind you. The contact group met and we were told that if we reached a compromise over taxation the problems would be solved and the Statute could come into force as proposed. What happened? We went along with the compromise, one that, incidentally, I consider illegal and that the European Court of Justice will never accept. We went along with it, however, in the interests of a common statute, and what was the outcome? The Council again raised other problems and issues and in the end we have made not the slightest progress."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples