Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-069"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-06-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Adoption of a Statute for Members of the European Parliament2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030602.6.1-069"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-06-02-Speech-1-0702
lpv:speaker	lp:Rijk van Dam2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; CONT (2003-01-29--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2002-03-18--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-09-18--2004-04-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the debate on a Statute for Members has now been running for five years, since the Treaty of Amsterdam. Before the European Parliament elections in 1999, Parliament and Council seemed unable to agree. In a year’s time the elections are coming around again. Will there be unambiguous rules in place regarding the legal position of Members then? I fear that that will possibly not be the case. The Rothley report still contains elements which are controversial as far as the Council is concerned, but, even worse, there are amendments which would postpone entry into force until 2009. Does the European Parliament really think that this is the way to seek the confidence of the electorate in May and June of next year? The rapporteur has shown himself to be a tough negotiator over all these years. Why is he putting the matter on the line, however, by describing not only the position regarding primary and secondary law, but also the privileges and immunities, because the latter constitute primary law. It would be a good thing if a majority tomorrow supported the series of amendments by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and others to abolish these. What is really important is that all Members receive equal remuneration. As far as we are concerned, reimbursing travel costs on the basis of the costs actually incurred is even more important. The latter is essential if we are to be able to face the electorate, and therefore we must do something about this quickly. What do we see, however, but amendments proposing waiting for a new Treaty, or until 2009. With all due respect, this does not make any sense. 25 years after the first direct elections, it is high time we cut the Gordian knot on this issue; it is high time we put the interests of Parliament’s work above our personal interests."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph