Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-068"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-12-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Members' Statute2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021204.4.3-068"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-12-04-Speech-3-0692
lpv:speaker	lp:Francis Wurtz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti communiste français (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 chair; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the starting point of my group’s deliberations on the issue of the Member’s Statute must be observing that there is a crisis of confidence between the citizens of most of our countries and the politicians. It is a major political challenge to resolve this crisis, perhaps the most important political challenge to be tackled in the near future. All our actions must take this objective into consideration. As it happens, the Confederal Group of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left believes it is necessary to ensure total transparency in the conditions governing the exercise of the parliamentary mandate and to dispel any idea of privileges for Members. In my view and in the view of the broad majority of my group, that requires two things: the first is that we need a statute in the very near future, in other words, some time before the June 2004 elections. Therefore, in the proposals that will be negotiated with the Council, we must not include provisions that we already know are unacceptable. Otherwise, we might as well be saying that we do not want a statute. The second requirement, in our view, is that the content of the proposals that we put forward must respect the positions of principle that I mentioned earlier – particularly transparency and the rejection of any notion of privilege. I do not intend to insult or offend anyone by saying this, Mr President. It is quite simply to explain why my group is opposed – and has already said so – to Parliament sending the document by the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Council in its current form. To give just two examples, Article 9 of the document claims to guarantee future Members virtual impunity. This is inexcusable, and the article regarding remuneration calls for a huge rise in allowances for most Members. At a time when the Union is advocating austerity measures to be imposed for employees and calling for public spending to be rationed, this might sound like a provocation. Obviously we find this unacceptable. Let us be honest therefore. Those of you who wish to come to a swift agreement with the Council on a Members’ Statute must not, at tomorrow’s vote, approve the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs in its current form as this report would obviously rule out the prospect of reaching an effective agreement on a statute. On the other hand, by voting in favour of the compromise resolution by Parliament’s three ‘pivotal’ groups, you will leave the way clear to seek an agreement that the broad majority of us, of you, say you want. Tomorrow, each of us will have the opportunity to shoulder our responsibilities."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph