Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2016-06-09-Speech-4-264-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20160609.23.4-264-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as part of the United Kingdom Brexit deliberations three critical aspects have been highlighted and they are as follows: European Union decision making and the lack of democracy; secondly, the influence and clout of MEPs in European Union decision making; and thirdly European Union scrutiny of its own processes and procedures. How apt it is that this debate brings into sharp focus all three of those!
Now we know that this debate stems from a LIBE question, from the LIBE Committee, and it is essentially a question to the Commission on the right to be informed appropriately when the European Union is negotiating international arrangements and agreements. The question asks whether the Commission will provide, at the very least, indications as to the third country in question, the type of agreement, the stage of the procedure and the relevant documents
to this Chamber! It should be of immediate concern to European Union citizens that this is not already the case.
Let me cite the example of my colleague Stuart Agnew who happens also to be an agricultural spokesperson. On Monday 12 October 2015 he viewed the recently published, restricted, agricultural chapter of the trade TTIP document. He had to sign a document stating that he would not disclose what he read, he had to hand over electronic gadgets and cameras, he was only allowed a pen, no paper, he was in a windowless cell and he was issued with special blank paper which could not be photocopied. He was even told that if he disclosed what he had read he would be punished, penalised with a fine and also at the mercy of punishment from Mr Schulz, the President of this Chamber.
If that is what defines the European Union’s definition of transparency and openness on this critical issue of negotiations on international agreements, then quite frankly not only is that a farce, it is unacceptable.
Then we have the case of another MEP, Mr Ming Flanagan. He also visited the TTIP chamber. He also highlighted what was wrong, and he got an email back from Mr Bernd Lange, a fellow MEP, who seem to think ‘that these confidential documents can be consulted on the premises of the European Parliament has been a great achievement for this institution’ and enabled us MEPs to better exert our role of parliamentary scrutiny in negotiations.
Well I do not agree with what Mr. Lange says, and quite frankly for him to even state that when it is quite patently the opposite is just bizarre. Now it is absolutely farcical what we are faced with, but let’s be serious just for a moment. All too often the European Union raises the red flag and condemns secrecy, breaches of openness and transparency elsewhere in the world. Yet here is the European Union saying one thing but adopting the complete opposite in its own backyard, and actually keeping or restricting any information to MEPs.
Quite clearly the messages should be
us
the Commission to the Council: Put your own house in order, abide by the transparency that you expect, demand and even dictate from others, but finally restore democracy within this organisation and stop the secrecy and withholding of vital information to which we are entitled, which we are entitled to communicate to our voters, and to which our European Union citizens should be entitled."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"from"1
"to"1
"to Parliament"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples