Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-255-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121023.16.2-255-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The credibility of the Commission’s work programme is linked to the credibility and morality of its mode of operation. These were the topics discussed in the Dalli case. Fighting corruption is a priority. When corruption is sanctioned outside the law, fighting it becomes an act of corruption in itself. The European Anti-Fraud Office has not found any direct evidence to prove that Commissioner Dalli is guilty. Nor has it indicated any legal text that has been contravened. Circumstantial evidence alone cannot overturn the presumption of innocence. The procedure followed by the Commission in the case of Mr Dalli leaves a stain on his reputation in every sense. If Mr Dalli is innocent, the sacrifice of an innocent Member would e a shame. If he is guilty, the Commission’s attempt to hide behind his ‘voluntary’ resignation, and the guilt of not having prevented the irregularities or sanctioned them promptly, would an act of cowardice and irresponsibility. To ask an innocent person to resign is an aberration. What then can you ask of a guilty one? To ask for proof of innocence goes against the principles of law. What is certain is that his resignation delays the adoption of the Tobacco Products Directive, to the delight of those who are opposed to it. Slander is cheaper than a bribe. Therefore, I wonder, who is the corrupt party: Mr Dalli or the European Commission ?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples