Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-25-Speech-1-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060925.15.1-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am the longest-serving Member of the European Parliament and the one who has travelled most often to Strasbourg. I was a member of the Committee on Budgets and of the Conference of Presidents when the majority decided that the secretariat should be in Luxembourg and the meetings held by turns in Strasbourg and Brussels. When we had to choose between Strasbourg and Brussels, I voted in favour Strasbourg, so I am not addressing you from an anti-French perspective.
A million signatures have now been collected so that we might have a single seat. That is a striking expression of grass-roots opinion. We no longer want to find ourselves wasting taxpayers’ money and MEPs’ and employees’ time. We should therefore do what we can to respond to people’s criticism. When we set the calendar of sittings for 2008, we could decide to meet each Tuesday in the city where the Commission meets. We could be given a report on the day’s decisions and take all the votes requiring absolute majorities. In that way, the need for moving between the two centres would be drastically reduced. The ball would be in the prime ministers’ court, and they would be forced to establish a single place of work. That is something that we ourselves can do without violating the Treaty.
We can also send out a signal by not purchasing new buildings now. I have tabled Amendment 9 in order to prevent or postpone their purchase. No one has had the imagination to picture the city of Strasbourg taking financial advantage of the European Parliament and European taxpayers. That idea was not put forward at any meeting I remember, and I will not accuse successive Secretary-Generals of having been negligent. It must be possible to expect public authorities to be honest and to show loyalty to one another. I understand, moreover, that Strasbourg has not contravened the law. That being the case, the law must be changed so that public authorities have a duty of information when they deal with each other. Here in Parliament, however, we are not obliged to purchase buildings from the city of Strasbourg. We have enough buildings, and now we must unite in demanding a single place of work."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples