Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-135"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Verbatim Reports (amendment of Rule 173) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071022.15.1-135"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-10-22-Speech-1-1362
lpv:speaker	lp:Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AGRI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; UEN (2005-12-13--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe "PIAST" (2007-09-11--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2007-04-25--2009-07-13)3 member; CULT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-21--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Madam President, the Commission’s initiative to amend Rule 173 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament makes me think again about the European Union. Who is the Union for? Is it for ideologues or for the people? If it is supposed to help people, then why is something being proposed that is against their interest? What is it that we want to hide from people? Yes, hide. I say that because the intention to limit access to information in one’s own language will mean that. Why are citizen’s fundamental rights being breached and why are people being discriminated against on the basis of the date they acceded to the European Union or the number of people in their country? What is there in common between the principles of mutual respect and democracy and an attempt forcibly to bring about a situation where the inhabitants of the old EU Member States get materials, including written materials, in their own languages from the European Parliament, whilst the inhabitants of the new Member States are directed to websites to listen to recordings of debates. At the same time no attention is being paid to the fact that, in the new Member States, there are many people who cannot afford to have the internet at home. This affects millions of people; millions of people would be deprived of information. Justifying the proposed decision on grounds of costs sounds like a joke. Does this mean that we can afford to spend hundreds of millions of euros on unnecessary administration, on maintaining two or even three buildings for the Parliament, but we cannot afford to inform the people, the taxpayers, how the Union is spending their money and what are its plans. Ladies and gentlemen, if we have any respect for ourselves and for other people, there can be only one solution, with no machinations. We fulfil the instructions in Rule 96, which states: ‘Parliament shall ensure the utmost transparency of its activities’."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph