Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.1.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as you can see from this Chamber, the feeling is unanimous: after 25 years, it is time for the European Parliament and the Members of this Parliament to have a single Statute or a single set of rules. Furthermore, after 25 years, it may well also decide on our place of work. Perhaps unlike my colleagues, however, I personally think that it is just fine. There is a genuine problem: public opinion is focusing on us and this system is not working. Of course, I find the word ‘Statute’ a bit pompous. The basic idea was to incorporate into the Statute a genuine charter for MEPs, which would also include the prerogatives of MEPs, a common package that would have given a meaning to the word ‘statute’. If we want the extremely important system of financial provisions for MEPs to progress, let us call it by its name. We should, however, reserve the word ‘statute’ for a time when, like national parliamentarians, we have common rules for the other issues that had also been incorporated – and which today have to be removed, or we imagine they will have to be removed, for a whole series of reasons – but which remain fundamental. Our statute will only be valid when we have provided for prerogatives and functions and for effective equal status with national Members of Parliament, as, for example, in Italy, where MPs can visit prisons whenever they wish. This seems to me to be the correct meaning of the ‘Members’ Statute’."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples