Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-22-Speech-4-812"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-05-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080522.24.4-812"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-05-22-Speech-4-8112
lpv:speaker	lp:Mikel Irujo Amezaga2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; DEVE (2007-07-09--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2007-07-10--2009-07-13)3 member; CULT (2007-07-10--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2007-07-09--2009-07-13)3 member; G/EFA (2007-06-19--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Eusko Alkartasuna (2007-06-26--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"I voted in favour of the report on effectiveness although I do not agree with all of it. First, because Member States do not keep their word, which means that all the work carried out by European institutions ends up being worthless. Moreover, the report does not show clearly how Member States commit themselves to one role (supporters of partner countries in the implementation of aid) but really perform another (funding only those initiatives that are priorities for their own economies), without paying attention to the social and economic development of the partner countries (orphans). Second, because more effectiveness and transparency is requested when discussing the funding of projects. Of course we want effectiveness. However, transparency means more audits, more consultations, more controls – in brief, more waste of time and money on bureaucracy, and this slows down rather than facilitates the work of MANY people. Transparency therefore reduces effectiveness. I would like to see transparency being used as a tool to achieve effectiveness and that the latter always prevails."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph