Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-079"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-02-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Intergovernmental Conference2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000202.6.3-079"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-02-02-Speech-3-0802
lpv:speaker	lp:Jens-Peter Bonde2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; CONT (1999-07-21--2001-04-23)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; JuniBevægelsen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 co-chair; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-01-29)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the President of the Commission was not being quite honest when he talked last week about the Intergovernmental Conference. He said that there would always be unanimity on social questions but, in the Commission’s draft, plans are quite explicitly being made for majority decision-making on issues relating to social security and on taxes connected with the internal market. This means that it will be possible for major parts of the social systems in the Member States to be changed by a majority in Brussels, even if a unanimous French National Assembly, a British House of Commons and a Dutch Lower House should be against this. And, in this regard, you are going to the heart of democracy as it relates to distribution policy and people’s social conditions, which are what voters wish to influence when they go to the polls. These are matters which we ourselves shall no longer be able to decide upon as voters and no longer be able to change on election day. Brussels knows best. Mr Prodi also announced greater transparency, but his draft regulation signals a clear backward step, and that is not only my assessment, but also that of the European Ombudsman. Today, the Commission is obliged, on a case-by-case basis, to weigh considerations of confidentiality against people’s demands for, and expectation of, transparency and, if the Commission’s regulation is adopted, the Commission will be entitled to lock away whole categories of documents without having to give them specific consideration. There is also the desire to create a legal entitlement to confidentiality and to lock away documents of a kind which are at present publicly available in a range of Member States. Under the banner of “progress towards transparency”, a range of documents is being locked away from the general public. It is, of course, thoroughly Orwellian. I want to ask Mr Prodi never more to comment on a proposal here in the House which is not, at the same time, available for critical scrutiny by the public. Mr Prodi secured positive comments for a proposal which would otherwise have been met with criticism, for the new draft regulation presents as progress the fact that it will now be possible to grant right of access to documents in the Commission’s possession. There follows, however, a long, long list of exceptions, and there is legal entitlement to confidentiality in regard to those exceptions. The French text contains the word “refuse” and the English text the word “shall”, which means that the Commission is to keep secret such information as is today available to the public, for example in my own country. In addition, we have a flexible clause concerning the efficiency of the negotiations and of the institutions, which may be used for any purposes whatsoever. It is therefore …"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut the speaker off)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph