Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-29-Speech-4-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040129.2.4-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to explain why our group, the Group of the European Peoples’ Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, has abstained on Amendment No 1 in Mr Casaca’s report.
The word ‘abstention’ is reminiscent of certain expressions commonly used in surveys such as ‘do not know, no comment’ and, in this case, we believe that we Members of this Parliament do not yet know either the magnitude of the facts, in relation to Eurostat, or the possible responsibilities stemming from them. And ‘no comment’, in the sense that OLAF, a body responsible for combating fraud, has not provided this Parliament or any of its committees with adequate information in this regard, which could provide a detailed and complete picture of the situation.
Under these circumstances, a vote in favour of the amendment would imply that we had full knowledge of the facts and that as a result we were passing judgment in terms of certain responsibilities. A vote against would also mean having knowledge of the facts and drawing a line under the issue as if it had already finished, without clarifying responsibilities. It was therefore better to await any news which may arrive from OLAF.
I cannot end without saying that we believe Parliament has shown incoherence this morning, and the majority has rejected the individual responsibility of Commissioners, immediately after an individualised reference, which, in our opinion, is unfair, since it is untimely, partial and hasty. We trust that OLAF will soon provide the information we need in order to issue a reasoned judgment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples