Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.20.2-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This report is about more than rubberstamping the bill pertaining to the 2004 financial year. Without Amendment 9, it also gives this House’s Bureau licence to spend the reserve on the purchase of buildings in Strasbourg.
We have nothing against the calculation that shows that a purchase will prove more beneficial in the long run than extending the rental agreement. We would vote in favour if that were the only issue involved. More importantly, it makes a significant contribution to our being able to carry on the monthly part-sessions in Strasbourg in a sustainable manner.
These are now setting us back EUR 200 000 000 or more annually. In September 1999, the Dutch Parliament unanimously spoke out against the European Parliament continuing to sit in two different cities. As a result, the Dutch representatives across all EU bodies were urged to put an end to this practice at the earliest opportunity. That reflects what is being said in the Dutch media and the opinion which the public has held on this matter for years.
Whilst the Netherlands considers the purchase of buildings in Strasbourg as one of this House’s key decisions, the issue, that is concealed in the purchase authorisation, is not addressed separately after this item on the agenda. That is why we will be voting against."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples