Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-08-Speech-1-149"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-03-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Statute and financing of political parties at European level (amendments to the Rules of Procedure)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040308.12.1-149"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-03-08-Speech-1-1502
lpv:speaker	lp:Philip Claeys2
lpv:spokenAs	member; NA (2003-06-16--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Vlaams Blok (2003-06-16--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2003-07-02--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2003-07-03--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, the Regulation governing the statute and the financing of political parties at European level contains a number of provisions that are unacceptable from a democratic point of view. For example, the smaller parties that are not active in at least a quarter of the Member States, but are represented in the European Parliament, are excluded in advance. Worse still, substantive, political and ideological conditions are being imposed for obtaining European party funding. What is the specific meaning of the obligation to observe the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law? Who decides that? In a democracy, is it not up to the voter to do so? The door is being left wide open for arbitrariness, as was demonstrated in certain articles in the press when Parliament adopted the Leinen report. In fact, it is simply a case of targeting parties that call into question politically correct thinking about taboos such as the immigration problem. It is regrettable, therefore, that the provisions of the Regulation are being incorporated into Parliament’s Rules of Procedure without the opportunity being taken to prevent arbitrary abuses. Various cases have been brought before the Court of Justice against the Regulation. These cases are well-founded. It is rather embarrassing that we have to now pretend that they do not exist. One of the justifications in the report states: ‘It is important for Parliament's plenary decision to be prepared as calmly and objectively as possible, with due regard to the rights of the defence.’ That is cynicism in the extreme, because the groups are judging and being judged at the same time. That is incompatible with the rule of law. Also inconceivable in the context of the rule of law is the fact that there is no possibility of appeal. To accept such a thing is in effect to exclude oneself from eligibility for European party funding."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph