Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-08-Speech-4-026"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-05-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Framework for the activities of lobbyists in the EU institutions (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080508.3.4-026"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-05-08-Speech-4-0282
lpv:speaker	lp:Reinhard Rack2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2007-05-23--2009-07-13)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3,3 unknown; Österreichische Volkspartei - Liste Ursula Stenzel (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3,3 member; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3,3 substitute; AFCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3,3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2006-02-06--2009-07-13)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, number one: we congratulate Alexander Stubb on his elevation to Foreign Minister in Finland. Number two: we congratulate Ingo Friedrich and thank him for taking over the report and, hopefully, bringing it to a good end this afternoon. Number three: we support the concept and the direction of the Stubb/Friedrich report. But... I will now continue in German. After this twofold tribute to Alexander Stubb, a 'but' is necessary. It is good to have rules on lobbying, but in Parliament, we already have good rules, and I am not entirely sure that this attempt to achieve a combined arrangement is really a wise move. Transparency is a good thing, but it cannot work miracles, especially if it is essentially piecemeal in nature. Registration and disclosure of the financial interests of registered lobbyists are all very well, but what about the numerous letter-writers, experts, and our other contacts? How should we deal with them? Will we expect them all of them to be registered in future, and to disclose their financial interests? I do hope not! Then there are the exceptions: in particular, two exceptions are proposed in two of the amendments which certainly do not promote transparency. Amendment 3 has already been mentioned. The aim is to bring about a situation in which the churches will be deemed to be official lobbyists. In my view, this is not about transparency; it is simply the reflection of an anti-clerical attitude, and we should say 'no' to that. A similar attempt is made in Amendment 10, namely to achieve an arrangement, via an exception to the exception, which also does not serve the matter at hand. In reality, this is simply an attempt to penalise certain sectors. We should ensure that we have a transparent system and that we improve it. However, we should not assume from the outset that this now represents a major change compared with the current situation."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE ). –"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph