Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-10-Speech-4-040-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-05-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Discharge 2010 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120510.9.4-040-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-05-10-Speech-4-041-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Søren Bo Søndergaard2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AFCO (2012-01-19--2014-02-04)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2014-02-04)3 member; CONT (2012-01-19--2014-02-04)3 vice-chair; CRIM (2012-04-18--2012-07-10)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 substitute; IMCO (2012-01-19--2014-02-04)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (2009-07-14--2014-02-04)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, the European Union has an annual turnover of billions of euro. This is effected by the Commission, the Council, Parliament and a whole host of institutions and agencies. These several billion euro have not just fallen from the sky. They come from hard-working taxpayers in the 27 Member States. What is more, these are taxpayers who have experienced cuts and reductions in recent years. Therefore, an absolutely key question is: who is checking, on behalf of these taxpayers, how all of this money is being spent? The European Parliament is the only institution that is directly elected by EU citizens. The answer is therefore the European Parliament, as national parliaments cannot scrutinise the whole of the EU. Or perhaps is it more correct to say that Parliament does this where most EU institutions are concerned. Parliament does not do this where the Council is concerned, however, simply because the Council refuses to answer the questions we ask about its accounts. The Council has had various explanations for why it considers itself to be above parliamentary scrutiny. First of all, the Council referred to the so-called gentlemen’s agreement, but when we dug this out, it emerged that it was a unilateral declaration by the Council – a declaration which, incidentally, originates from 1970, that is to say, nine years before Parliament was even directly elected. Now the Council is referring to the fact that, pursuant to the Treaty, Parliament is only permitted to approve the Commission’s accounts, and when it has done so, it will also have approved the accounts of all the other EU institutions. I think this is a very interesting point of view, as the only logical conclusion we can draw from this is that, in future, we will have to put our questions concerning the Council’s accounts to the Commission. If the Commission is unable to answer them, it will obviously have consequences for our approval of the Commission’s accounts. That would, of course, be absurd. Therefore, I also hope that the Council will see sense and answer the questions that we have put to it. There is rarely complete agreement in a parliament, but in the Committee on Budgetary Control’s recommendation for this meeting, there was absolute unanimity on postponing the decision concerning the Council’s accounts to the autumn. We have thereby shown our good will, as it will give the Council and the Danish Presidency yet another opportunity to tackle this secrecy and instead accept budgetary control by Parliament, which applies to all other EU institutions. Better late than never!"@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph