Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-18-Speech-3-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030618.9.3-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin by saying immediately on behalf of my Group that we accept the compromise that has been so skilfully negotiated between the rapporteur, the Greek Presidency and the Commission on this text. I would like to congratulate those involved on having worked so hard to make it possible for us to reach a first reading agreement so that this legislation can be adopted in good time before the next European elections. I would like to pay tribute to the work of the rapporteur, Jo Leinen, in this respect, and indeed to all those who came before him in preparing the way, notably Professor Tsatsos in his report a number of years ago.
This is an exercise in transparency, no more, no less. It puts on a clear and transparent footing the method by which the Union will finance trans-national European political parties. Up to now it has been done indirectly via the political groups in the European Parliament, henceforth it will be done directly according to clear criteria and clear procedures set out in this legislation. That is why we welcome it.
My group also accepts the various compromises that have been made as regards the detail. Frankly, we would have preferred a higher threshold in Article 3, as regards the representativity of European political parties, but we are happy to accept, in the spirit of compromise that is necessary in the European Union, that this somewhat lower threshold will apply. We are particularly pleased that the issue of donations has been settled, and that a clear, transparent and limited system where any donation to a political party is limited in level and also has to be registered on a register is laid down in the text.
There are a few strange little things in the text where I think the lawyer-linguists need to look at some of the translation versions. It is not a matter of amending the text formally in the plenary, but when the
of the text is done I would like them to look notably at Article 5(2), where the English version specifies that Parliament verifies that a party meets the necessary conditions by a majority of its Members. Is that a majority of Members needing to accept that a party meets the conditions, or a majority of Members needing to challenge that a party no longer meets the necessary conditions? The text in the English version is not clear and it would be useful if that were tidied up when the translations are verified.
Similarly, that Article makes no mention – it may just be a typing error – of the verification of Article 3d. It mentions 3a, 3b and 3c, but 3d seems to be missing. No doubt this can easily be corrected.
Finally, on Article 6, point (c), the fourth and last indent in the English version reads as if it almost contradicts the previous indent. I think it is clear what the intention was in drafting it this way, but it has not been very well rendered in the English language version and it would be useful to correct it. Those conclude my comments on behalf of the PSE Group."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"toilettage"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples