Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-25-Speech-2-054-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-10-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:2009 discharge: Council (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20111025.6.2-054-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-10-25-Speech-2-055-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Bart Staes2
lpv:spokenAs	member; G/EFA (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2009-09-29--2012-02-12)3 vice-chair; CONT (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; DEVE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Groen (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ENVI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2009-09-16--2012-02-05)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Mr Dominik, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, like Ms Gräßle, I am very pleased to see the Council here for this debate. I have just checked the list of speakers and I see that you have not asked to address the House. I would like – and I do think that I am speaking on behalf of the rest of the House – to ask you to respond to the end of the debate and our comments straight away so that we can have a proper exchange of views ... ... OK, duly noted. It was not on the list of speakers. The debate that we are holding today has actually already been going on for more than three years. That is a bad thing, really, as we are trying to reach a solution. This is not happening. The Council is truly pig-headed and we keep hearing in this debate about a gentlemen’s agreement that was concluded forty years ago. Maybe there is a gentlemen’s agreement, but the Council is certainly not behaving like a gentleman in this situation. What is it that we are asking for? We are simply asking for there to be supervision of the Council’s budget, just as happens for the other institutions. Is that really too much to ask? The use of resources garnered from taxpayers must be monitored. That is what this is about. Our group, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, thus does not want to grant discharge to the Council because we want to keep the pressure on, because we want to make it clear that resources must be spent properly. In all fairness, no one in this debate is saying that the Council commits fraud with the funds allocated to it. No one is saying that there are irregularities – this is simply about democratic supervision by a Committee on Budgetary Control that has been appointed for that purpose and whose role this is. The only response that we have had to our question is a letter dated 2 June, which said ‘Look, our interpretation of the Treaty on European Union is that, if discharge is granted to the Commission, that covers everything’. I would like to ask the President-in-Office: surely you cannot be serious about this? First of all, it contradicts years of what has been done in practice, and, secondly, it is ultimately a Pyrrhic victory. The reason for that is, if we follow that interpretation, just as we ask other agencies to appear before the Committee on Budgets in connection with the granting of discharge with regard to the Commission, we will also ask the Council to appear before that Committee."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President explained that the Council will be given the floor)"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