Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-24-Speech-3-328"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-09-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Question Time (Commission)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080924.33.3-328"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-09-24-Speech-3-3292
lpv:speaker	lp:Jörg Leichtfried2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"The situation is as follows: the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is now being given more and more competences in order to guarantee a uniform standard of safety in Europe, and that is most welcome. Its competences are now being extended for a second time. What is not happening, however, is any budget increase for the EASA, nor are other sources of financing being identified. There are two options here. The first option is not to treat all the agencies equally. I would not go as far as some colleagues, who say that if some agencies ceased to operate, no one would notice. The EASA is different: if the EASA has no money, human lives are put at risk. The second option is third-party financing, which means boosting the EASA's funding through some sort of ticket-based levy. My question is this: which of these two options would you favour? Madam President, I would also like to make a brief comment outside the agenda, if I may: I fully endorse what our fellow Member from Poland has said regarding the conduct of the sitting."@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