Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.20.2-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The issue of where the seats of the institutions are located is not merely a geographical, logistical or economic issue. When a particular city is chosen as the seat of a Community institution, there are always political factors involved, too, which is totally justified, although it does not follow that any political decision is valid, irrespective of its economic or logistical rationale.
In the case of the European Parliament, the choice of Strasbourg was based on historical factors, but nowadays, in terms of economics and practicality, it is no longer viable. Although this is not the issue at hand, it is worth bearing it in mind.
One might have expected that the City of Strasbourg would pull out all the stops to help Parliament to settle in the city, even by bearing some of the costs, as the rules of hospitality in such circumstances often dictate. However, what we find – or rather, suspect, given that the authorities in question are not helping to clarify matters completely – is that having Parliament in Strasbourg is just a piece of real estate business from which the authorities earn a profit they do not deserve. The lack of good faith, decent hospitality and fairness that this reveals is something we should condemn outright and should be taken into account when decisions are taken as to where Parliament should be located."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples