Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-191"

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	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060426.15.3-191"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-04-26-Speech-3-1922
lpv:speaker	lp:José Javier Pomés Ruiz2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-28--2009-07-13)3 member; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Unión del Pueblo Navarro (2004-09-16--2009-01-20)3 member; DEVE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2007-02-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I must begin by protesting at the nocturnal hour at which we are holding this debate and by thanking our Secretary-General, Julian Priestley, for being here. But it is very important that we reassure the citizens that money is properly spent. Why is this debate being held at night? Does somebody want to protect the City of Strasbourg? Do not give me the answer now; I would simply ask that, when we hold this debate again in six months time, if we do in fact delay the discharge of the budget, the debate should be at prime time, before the newspapers have gone to print, as they have on this occasion. This debate on such an important issue is being eclipsed by the problem we are facing in relation to the City of Strasbourg, which benefits greatly from having the European Parliament there twelve weeks per year. Paris protects it. That is why it has transferred the from Paris to Strasbourg. Why? It wants to revitalise Strasbourg; we understand its interest. The City of Strasbourg, as Mr Stubb has said, has published a note. If the note is intended to explain the difference between the money paid by Parliament and what the owners of the building receive, we must ask them for 'our money back', to use Margaret Thatcher’s terms Fortunately, we know who has the over-paid money and where it is, and fortunately they are in a position of solvency. If the investigation that will have to look into this incomprehensible imbalance concludes that the City of Strasbourg must return the money, I am sure that it will do so and that the French authorities will do so. This debate is very important. I remember when Mrs Cresson, former Socialist Prime Minister of France, here in this Parliament, refused to accept that she had spent some of the money for which she was responsible badly. In the end, the courts obliged Mrs Cresson to take responsibility, and at that point the whole of the Commission had to take collective responsibility. I hope that things do not go so far this time. I am sure that the City of Strasbourg will do what it must do to return the money, if its only arguments are really those expressed in this feeble press release that it has sent us."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"École Nationale d’Administration"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph