Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-10-Speech-2-072"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-03-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090310.7.2-072"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-03-10-Speech-2-0762
lpv:speaker	lp:Charlotte Cederschiöld2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2007-07-23--2009-07-13)3 member; IMCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Moderata Samlingspartiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; JURI (2007-03-12--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2007-03-29--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we fully share Mr Cashman’s aims and commitment to transparency, but we must not forget that there is a regulation that is being recast here. Together, we have pushed the current transparency legislation through. The four Nordic Member States have written to the committee about this regulation, stating that it increases citizens’ trust in the EU and that it provides the greatest possible degree of transparency. Mr Cashman and I have always worked very well together, but this time we did not have enough time to sort out all of the issues that were unclear. In other words, it is quite early on in the process, but I welcome many of the proposals and look forward to our continued cooperation. When the Transparency Regulation was adopted, the ‘yes’ votes from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats were decisive in winning the vote. This time, too, the PPE-DE votes will probably be significant for the final outcome, which will presumably come during a new Parliament. The PPE-DE Group will use its votes to strengthen legal certainty, predictability and clarity when the rules are formulated as the process continues. We want increased transparency and citizens must be able to follow the democratic debate. We believe that the matter requires more preparation, so that there are common impact assessments with regard to the institutions’ way of working, for example. A number of amendments, around 40 to 50 of them, which relate to the Commission’s right of initiative, have caused some discussion. The only thing I would like to add is that it should not result in a greater lack of clarity, as that would run counter to the aim of the recast. What is on the table today will probably be modified after the elections. The PPE-DE Group wishes, then, to achieve a degree of transparency that can receive the support of all EU citizens and Member States. This requires those involved to know what the rules are – that being the aim of the proposal. Sanctions cannot be used, either, if there are no clear instructions. As regards sanctions, there is already existing legislation to be taken into account. We therefore see the proposal as an as yet unfinished product, but we fully agree with Mr Cashman that it should lead to increased transparency and that is what we have indicated in our amendments. Transparency is an important part of democracy. I have five minutes for the PPE-DE Group, so could I just say my last few words? ( ) We say ‘yes’ to transparency, but we want to avoid the naivety that can expose people to danger or abuse. Will the PPE-DE Group lose the three minutes, or what?"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"SV"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph