Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-176"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-04-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Discharges for the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2004 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"lt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060426.15.3-176"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-04-26-Speech-3-1772
lpv:speaker	lp:Ona Rainyté-bodard2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ECON (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2007-02-26)3 unknown; Darbo partija (2004-07-20--2009-02-16)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EMPL (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Today, I will perhaps attempt to answer Mr Stubb and Mr Jørgensen who asked why we are discussing this question so late and who we want to hide from – society or ourselves. I would like to remind you that last year, also in April, we voted on the approval of the European Parliament Budget for 2003, where I was the principal rapporteur. And I proposed that the European Parliament should abandon its work in Strasbourg. Today, I am the shadow rapporteur and I would like to remind you, that last year Members of the European Parliament decided to retain three work places and to continue sessions in Strasbourg. Each year, such work or its organisation costs the Community's citizens EUR 200 million. Mr President, do we have the right to be surprised then that Strasbourg city authority is trying to obtain an unrealistically high price for buildings? I do not think so because we encouraged it to take such actions ourselves. The retention of the European Parliament Headquarters in Strasbourg is condemned to continue losing money until we give it up. It is nothing new that there are economic subjects or persons, who commit fraud or even become corrupt. But often they are encouraged to behave in this way by a monopoly situation, illogical laws or political decisions. We ourselves, my fellow Members of Parliament, decided to use the buildings in Strasbourg knowing that they will cost an unjustifiably huge amount of money and will mean losses for the city and its people, as we only use those buildings for a few days a month. This is elementary economic logic. Many times it has been calculated and argued that if another institution were to move into the European Parliament buildings, working all year long, then this would be of more benefit to the city economically and financially. Therefore, we must accept that we all know this, but for some reason we do not want to change the situation. I believe that the people of Strasbourg, like all the other citizens of the Community, have become the hostages of incorrect decisions we have made ourselves. I support the proposal to postpone the approval of the European Parliament budget until we have examined how many more losses the people of Europe have experienced. It is very important to ascertain whether there has been corruption or violations of laws and agreements, but it is far more important, honourable Members of Parliament, to finally make the decision to give up this unjustifiable, shameful waste of European people's money. We have to work effectively in one place and we must use money where it is most needed."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph