Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-011"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20031217.1.3-011"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what our group now endorses with the utmost modesty is what we could have done months ago if we had listened to the smaller groups, but history is history and the future belongs to us all, and so we believe it to be a very good thing that we have ended up in our present situation. One thing that this means is that we want to adopt a basic resolution to the effect that the same provisions apply to all Members of this House, since we all do the same work. At the same time, though, we will, by adopting this, be taking a decision to put an end to the rules on billing for travelling expenses, which are far from transparent and, in my – our – view, quite simply not right and proper. This is something we must always make clear. By adopting the single statute, we are also voting to do away with reimbursements of travel costs that are utterly absurd. It is important that this should become a matter of public knowledge. Secondly, we are also making it clear that we are intelligent enough to make transitional arrangements possible, so that the enlargement countries will indeed have time to join in this joint arrangement, for it would be absurd if someone, on becoming a Member of the European Parliament, were, overnight, to start earning more than the Prime Minister of a country. This is about opting in rather than opting out, for the same Statute will apply to us all. Precisely when these states’ MEPs join in, will have to be laid down by the Council in the form of intelligent rules – in other words, by an opting-in arrangement. When one is in place, then the future of our statutes will be guaranteed. A number of Members of this House are somewhat outraged at our having stipulated that our entitlement to a pension will begin at the end of our sixty-third year of age. I would have thought that sixty-five would be right, for we should demand of ourselves what we demand, at the present time, of society as a whole, without getting special treatment. I am, therefore, firmly opposed to the idea of reducing the figure adopted in this resolution. To do so would send the wrong message to the public. Let me sum up by saying that all is well that ends well. Many thanks to all those who have lent a hand in this."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph