Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-283"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-01-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:1997 discharge2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000118.9.2-283"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-01-18-Speech-2-2842
lpv:speaker	lp:Mogens Camre2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Dansk Folkeparti (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-30--2001-01-30)3 vice-chair; UEN (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; CONT (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, first of all, I have only positive comments to make on Mrs Van der Laan’s very expert work on this report. The Union for a Europe of Nations Group cannot vote for approving the accounts for 1997. The report on so-called discharge contains a comprehensive and extremely critical survey of the accounts. We support these critical remarks, and I must therefore state that it would seem quite absurd, against this background, to vote in favour of approving the accounts. It has not been possible for the Court of Auditors to issue an auditor’s statement to the effect that the arrangements covered by the accounts are lawful, and we should regard it as extremely problematic if we, as Members of this Parliament, were to vote in favour of accounts without having any guarantee of the legality of the arrangements concerned. The majority have made their approval of the accounts conditional upon the new Commission’s implementing a series of reforms, so as to ensure that what we are familiar with from the previous Commission’s period of office is not repeated. Again, I must say that we are concerned here with an extremely unfortunate confusion of the old Commission’s accountability for 1997 and the new Commission’s accountability for the future. We do not think that the new Commission, under any circumstances, could incur liability for the past. We think it is wrong to talk about the Commission’s liability as an institution. The mistakes up until 1999 are attributable to those who had responsibility at that time, and we still have no way of knowing whether the new Commission can do any better. By means of this extraordinary procedure, Parliament is stopping itself from placing liability for the arrangements in 1997 squarely where it belongs, namely with the previous Commission. It was the 1996 accounts which led to the downfall of the previous Commission, and the 1997 accounts are just as incriminating. There is no reason why, against this background, we should agree to grant discharge. As far as the decision to balance the accounts is concerned, we shall abstain from voting, and where, finally, the motion for a resolution is concerned, we shall attach most importance to the many correct instructions contained in this and vote in favour of it."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph