Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.5.2-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Since being elected to the European Parliament, I have heard a lot about the Members’ Statute. I believe Mr Rothley and the Committee on Legal Affairs as a whole have devoted a lot of time and energy to it, too much in my view since I have the impression that, as with the statute for European political parties, it is really about money. These are not the great breakthroughs in democracy that will bring the European Union closer to the citizens.
What is in fact the point of these proposals, since they amend a text of higher legal status and will therefore remain inapplicable?
What is the point of this attempted standardisation that creates a rift between the elected representatives of the present 15 Member States, the new ones, the old ones, and those of the ten states that will be joining us in a year’s time?
Many want a statute in order to improve an image tarnished by the abuses of a few. Unfortunately, nothing in this statute can be considered a real improvement in transparency.
But offering the representatives of the peoples of the Member States a European system that differs from national law will further widen the gap we are wanting to bridge.
That is why I voted against this draft statute."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples