Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-03-29-Speech-4-327-156"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120329.36.4-327-156"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The fact that the European Parliament has two seats: one where the committees meet and one where votes are taken in plenary is, frankly, anachronistic. The monthly move from one seat to the other is extremely expensive, and Europeans foot the bill without realising it. At a time when the global economic situation requires everyone to adopt austerity plans, the expenses involved in moving MEPs, assistants, translators, interpreters and officials, together with documents and technical equipment of all kinds, are completely unjustified. The economic waste stems from maintaining two practically identical seats which are both used by MEPs on a part-time basis. I am referring, in particular, to the seat in Strasbourg, which is kept active and operational so that it can be used just five days a month. In terms of the impact on the environment, in line with the importance that Parliament attaches to protecting the ecosystem while carrying out its activities, transporting all the equipment in lorries once a month from Brussels to Strasbourg and back to Brussels, and transferring thousands of people, undoubtedly produces CO
emissions which Europeans could be spared. For these reasons, I voted in favour of establishing a single seat of the European Parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples