Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-10-Speech-4-264-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-05-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120510.69.4-264-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-05-10-Speech-4-264-5002
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2010-02-25--2014-06-30)3 member; Parliament's Bureau (2012-01-18--2014-06-30)3 member; FEMM (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 quaestor; European Parliament (2012-01-18--2014-06-30)3 member; Quaestors (2012-01-18--2014-06-30)3 member; ECON (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; AGRI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social luxembourgeois (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"The resolution accompanying discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Parliament’s 2010 budget again contains its fair share of contradictions, errors and crackpot ideas. Consequently, I am opposed to this text, while I have no problem voting for the discharge, like my colleagues. I cannot understand why our legal service does not declare some of the amendments and also a number of paragraphs that have nothing to do with the discharge, such as paragraph 96, which is inconsistent with paragraph 95, inadmissible. How is it possible for a committee to scoff at the opinion of the legal service when it points out to it that an amendment is inadmissible? One of the most ludicrous requests is to seek the opinion of the Court of Auditors on the subsidy scheme for visitors’ groups. Indeed, the Bureau has, in fact, just changed this scheme. There is no risk of undue payments because these lump sums barely cover expenses. I also need to correct paragraph 68, which states that 2.3% of staff are Luxembourg nationals, which is relatively high. This figure is incorrect. There are 117 Luxembourg officials in total out of 5 540 posts…"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph