Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.1.3-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
vice-chair; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, it should be said that the contents of the compromise that appears to have taken shape lately cannot be said to be acceptable, just as various aspects of the original proposal were unacceptable.
We can certainly support the principle behind it: to give every MEP the same dignity and, above all, a constant reminder of a single point of reference for the exercise of their mandate, with the same common rights and responsibilities. Many aspects of the proposed law run counter to this principle: the first concerns the time when this law would come into force. In my opinion, rivers of words and of ink have already been spoken and written on the enlargement of the European Union, to support and comment positively on the many facets of the procedure; I do not intend, therefore, to add my positive thoughts on the matter.
Nevertheless, it has not been uncommon, especially recently, for the Community institutions to adopt legislative provisions and with many expressions of regret acknowledging the need to involve the future Member States only in the conciliation phase. Since that is the case, it is difficult to understand why it is a matter of such urgency to adopt the aforementioned Statute, since this would be done without the contribution of MEPs from the future Member States. I mean that we are being deliberately ‘forgetful’. Furthermore, if the principle is one of equality, indeed material equality, it is difficult to understand why MEPs, from whatever State they may be, when carrying out their mandate, which is at least equal to, if not higher than, that of a national MP, may have fewer prerogatives than the latter. In emphasising this point, I am, of course, referring to the national systems that provide the highest guarantees, because I find a system of rights that, in practice, tends to dumb down the guarantees provided for, is unacceptable.
There is, however, more and it concerns points that are, if you like, less noble, but that also call the concept of dignity into question. Certainly, nobody would object to a single source being responsible for the payment of salaries, but there is no doubt that one of the major problems here is the size of the salaries, that is, the reference to the amount that should, in the future, be paid as against current remuneration, whether this be higher or lower. In terms of ethics within their own country, I cannot see how one could justify a European Parliament Member suddenly receiving a higher, and in some cases much higher, salary, even from a source other than the current one. Similarly I cannot imagine how other Members could contemplate receiving a lower salary than the one they receive today, especially in consideration of the higher salaries received by national MPs, if not, indeed, by regional advisors, in the same State.
If, for a moment, however, we examine the principle of equality and see it as a positive factor, the concern expressed about taxation would mean falling back again into the trap of extreme disparities.
Then the compromise on the age of retirement does not seem to be worthy either. The overwhelming majority of the Member States currently set retirement in public organisations at the age of 65 or over. Thus, either we have the courage to ignore the fact that, because the pension scheme for MEPs is practically self-financed, it falls outside the pension costs of each Member State and, for the sake of pure political consistency, we opt for a retirement age limit of 65; or we show similar courage in admitting that the fund is, in substance, of a private nature and that the only valid rules are those dictated by actuarial statistical calculation.
I think that, in the event that the two other institutions fail to address this, the first to place themselves in a position of subordination will not be Parliament so much as its own Members."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples