Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-10-Speech-2-034-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-05-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2009 discharge (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110510.4.2-034-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-05-10-Speech-2-035-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Søren Bo Søndergaard2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AFCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2014-02-04)3 substitute; IMCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-02-04)3 unknown; Folkebevægelsen mod EU (2009-07-14--2014-02-04)3 member; CONT (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2014-02-04)3
lpv:translated text	". Thank you, Madam President. I would like to start by thanking everyone involved in drawing up these excellent and critical reports on the EU institutions’ accounts for 2009. Some people have questioned whether we are not being overly critical. For example, when we ask questions about our own method of spending money here in the European Parliament, whether in relation to the delayed opening of the Visitors’ Centre, the establishment of a secret television channel or the continuing travelling circus moving between Brussels and Strasbourg. No, we are not being overly critical. In fact our job, on behalf of European taxpayers, is precisely to put our finger on the sensitive areas and press hard. That is what our citizens expect of us, and in reality we could have included even more points of criticism. The fact that it is our job to investigate and to be critical is precisely why the Council’s behaviour is unacceptable. This year, the Council has again done everything it can to impede our work as auditors. It has refused to send us the relevant material, it has refused to answer our questions and it has refused to meet the Committee on Budgetary Control for an open debate, as all the other institutions do. I am obviously pleased that the Hungarian Presidency has chosen to be here. It should be commended for this. However, when we talk about a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between the Council and Parliament, I have to say that, if there is such an agreement, please can we see it. The Council has the chance to read it out today, if such an agreement exists. We would like to see it. We have repeatedly asked the Council to let us have it, but we have never received it. This is because it does not exist. Therefore, my group can fully support the proposal not to grant discharge to the Council today. Instead, we would call on the Council to desist from boycotting Parliament and to answer the questions that we are asking about its accounts. Today we are debating the EU’s accounts for 2009. However, just as important as what the accounts tell us is what they do tell us about something that is extremely important for the EU’s economy. A few days ago, Europol published a report on organised crime in the EU. It made shocking reading. According to the account in the newspaper VAT fraud alone costs many billions of euro a year. There is also fraud in connection with CO quotas, as well as other types of fraud. Therefore, there is certainly reason for us to continue, and intensify, our discussion of how the EU’s economy can be organised in the interests of taxpayers."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"2"1 "Le Monde"1 "not"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph