Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-131"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.5.2-131"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
The Statute for Members of the European Parliament has for years been the subject of two debates along completely opposite lines. One, in which I have joined, is about the way in which we can call a halt to the financial privileges that cause the electorate to regard MEPs in a suspicious light. The other is about the way in which membership of this House can be made more attractive by higher salaries, lower taxes and the highest level of Member protection against legal cases. I have always been in favour of a uniform salary for all MEPs, provided that this salary is significantly lower than that in France, England and particularly Germany and Italy. This uniform salary must remain subject to the national, regional and local taxes in the Member State of residence, as is the case for uniform salaries received by people working for international companies in different countries. Guaranteeing the same net income by extremely low European taxes is a completely superfluous privilege for MEPs. In addition, immunity must only protect freedom of speech of those elected and not lead to impunity in other matters. The EU's enlargement must not affect political diversity. The allocation of ever fewer seats in this House to each Member State prevents smaller movements from being represented. Unlike some other Dutch people, I have only ever seen a statute as a means to an end, never the main aim. Since the final document serves the opposite from what I have upheld, I am unable to give it my support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples