Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-19-Speech-4-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030619.3.4-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I regret the manner in which this report was put before the house. When the agenda includes the strengthening of ‘democracy and transparency’ in the functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament should set an example. This has certainly not happened, with the last-minute tabling of a vast number of apparent ‘compromise amendments’, considerably changing positions the rapporteur had always upheld and resulting from direct negotiations with the Council, about which more detailed information should be provided. As I said in the debate, the best thing would be to apply Rule 130a of the Rules of Procedure, send the procedure back to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and reschedule the subject for the July part-session. In addition, although I recognise that the final positions reflect highly positive advances compared with both the Commission’s initial proposal and the rapporteur’s obstinacy – a development that I welcome – I still have differences on essential points: the failure to provide for an expanded system embracing all legitimately constituted political parties, since the Treaty does not authorise discrimination between political parties ‘at European level’, recognising also that they are all ‘important’; the requirement for a level of self-financing that I consider too high and which I fear will be a source of problems at a supranational level; the non-jurisdictional system for rejecting funding, as I do not think the obvious existence of the right to appeal is sufficient. I therefore voted against the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples