Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-10-Speech-2-398-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110510.60.2-398-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I voted in favour of Mr Itälä’s report, but I have reservations about recital 113. I totally disagree with this recital, which proposes a new system for interpretation services for ‘working groups’. I cannot agree with it, because the proposed system: does not square with the principle of equal treatment of the Union’s official languages and of their users; will eventually undoubtedly lead to the exclusion of languages other than the six mentioned; will, in practice, be impossible to run in a workable fashion, for the simple reason that the member concerned will have to submit a request for interpretation in a supplementary language before they get to see the agenda; risks turning the language policy into a power game. If we really want to make savings when it comes to languages, then we should demand that this system apply equally to everyone.
If we cease to attach so much importance to the principle that some members should be allowed to speak in their own language, this will become less important for other members, too. There is, therefore, only one alternative if we have to economise on interpretation services in the ‘working groups’: use of English, and English only, as the medium of both speaking and listening. In that case, everyone will be equal before the law and we will be able to make savings."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples