Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-14-Speech-3-340-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-12-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"mt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20111214.26.3-340-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-12-14-Speech-3-341-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Simon Busuttil2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-14--2013-04-05)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2013-04-05)3 member; PETI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; IMCO (2010-06-02--2012-01-18)3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Partit Nazzjonalista (2009-07-14--2013-04-05)3 member; Delegation for relations with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo (2009-09-16--2013-04-05)3 substitute; Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (2009-09-16--2013-04-05)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, to put things into perspective, the first thing we should say is that the EU institutions are already amongst the most transparent institutions in the entire European Union. The EPP Group is committed to transparency and we have shown this recently in a vote we took in favour of the Hautala-Sargentini report on public access to documents. But unfortunately, the report we are debating is a case of a good thing taken too far. Instead of increasing transparency, it risks undermining the work of the institutions and therefore it does not serve the interests of our citizens. Let me explain why. According to this report, the minutes of the negotiating meetings we hold when we make laws with the Council and the Commission – trialogue meetings – would have to be made public. Now, if we do this, none of the negotiating parties involved will want to adopt a flexible approach for fear that what they say will be reported in public and will weaken their negotiating position. How will this benefit citizens, may I ask? It would make weaker laws, not better laws, because those involved would not take a flexible approach out of fear that what they say will be publicly reported in the name of transparency. They would not be allowed the space to think, the space to present different negotiating options and the space to adopt constructive positions. So, despite its good intentions, this report will not lead to further transparency. It will just undermine the institutions’ work in favour of citizens. It turns a good idea into a bad one. That is why the EPP Group will vote against this and continue to work constructively in favour of more transparency that makes sense."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Simon Busuttil (PPE )."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