Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-24-Speech-2-367"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091124.34.2-367"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Søndergaard for his successful work, as a result of which the Council ultimately accommodated Parliament in the discharge procedure. The Council refused, for a long while, to provide pertinent answers to Parliament’s questions, citing the Gentlemen’s Agreement – an agreement of an informal nature which is now, in any case, 40 years old. This seems downright bizarre when Council officials, after 40 years, clearly no longer know what exactly the Gentlemen’s Agreement states, since the version provided by the European Parliament contains precisely the opposite of what the Council claimed again and again in the negotiations.
The first resolution of the Gentleman’s Agreement stated that the Council would not attempt to make any changes to the European Parliament’s expenditure. The third resolution states that there should be close cooperation between the two institutions on budget issues. The Council takes this to mean that each institution will leave the budgetary activity of the other alone. At this point, I will refrain from commenting on the seriousness of this line of argument. Instead, I would like to thank the Swedish Presidency of the Council for having begun the process of bringing an end to this ignoble state of affairs.
The solution is an addendum to the interinstitutional agreement that clearly regulates the procedure for the granting of discharge to the Council by Parliament, as the proposed motion for a resolution demands. I therefore ask the House to support the motion."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples