Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-23-Speech-4-124"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050623.30.4-124"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-23-Speech-4-1252
lpv:speaker	lp:Mathieu Grosch2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-16--2007-03-13)3 member; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; REGI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Soziale Partei (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". In adopting a Statute for Members of the European Parliament, we are having the wrong debate at the wrong time. At the present time, we are all well aware of the urgent need for the EU to discuss its fundamental objectives. The popular votes in France and the Netherlands clearly indicated, among other things, the need for the EU to draw closer to its citizens in order to restore credibility to the European project, and, in view of that, I am not in favour of a debate on the Statute for MEPs being on the agenda. To say the least, the time is not well chosen. I welcome as an improvement the proposal that travel costs be reimbursed on the basis of the expenses actually incurred, and that the current payment of fixed amounts should cease. I nevertheless take the view that it is difficult to have a statute for MEPs that differs from those binding on their national counterparts. How is the difference between the earnings of an MEP and those of a member of a national parliament to be explained and justified? Current events lead me to abstain from voting on the Statute for Members of this House."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph