Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-12-Speech-2-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050412.6.2-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we need to remind ourselves what a discharge is. A discharge must allow us to say that the European budget has been properly implemented and to guarantee the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the transactions. A discharge must also allow us to assess the progress made in implementing the recommendations contained in the previous discharge.
I must therefore express my surprise as to the substance and form of this report, especially the European Parliament section. I do not understand the highly disagreeable tone taken by the rapporteur and the authors of certain amendments concerning all the Members of this Institution. The list of criticisms in fact implies a kind of dishonesty, and I absolutely will not endorse it. I do not think you can heap opprobrium on the Members of the European Parliament in this way. I would like to add that it is inconceivable that we should change the current rules on allowances until we have a single Statute for Members of the European Parliament. Incidentally, is this discharge the right place to talk about the use of tobacco and cigarettes on our premises? It is totally off-subject, though I grant it is a real problem.
Finally, and in particular, what can I say about the calling into question, once again, of the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg? May I first of all remind you that, contrary to what the report before us today says about it, Parliament is not competent in the matter. Apart from the 1992 Edinburgh European Council, which decided by unanimous vote of the Heads of State or Government that the European Parliament’s seat should be in Strasbourg for political reasons, that decision was also set forth in Protocol No 12 to the Treaty of Amsterdam so that it could be guaranteed by the Treaties.
A year ago, a similar proposal was made to abolish Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg and transfer completely to Brussels, and the Members of the European Parliament in their great wisdom rejected that proposal in plenary session; moreover, the members of the Convention pointed this out when discussing the Constitutional Treaty. The opponents of Strasbourg must not be allowed to use the 2003 discharge to make a renewed attempt to change Parliament’s seat. This question is off-subject and outside our legal competence."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples