Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-11-Speech-3-246"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-03-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090311.30.3-246"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-03-11-Speech-3-2472
lpv:speaker	lp:Bart Staes2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3,3 unknown; Groen (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3,3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3,3 substitute; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3,3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3,3 substitute; REGI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3,3 member; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3,3
lpv:translated text	"− There is no doubt that the 2001 regulation brought about greater transparency for citizens by granting the public access to documents of the European institutions. It is good to revisit this regulation after seven years of practical experience. What can we see? Back in 2006, the European Parliament made many proposals to change the regulation with a view to improving transparency even more, but the Commission failed to give this any serious consideration. What is more, the Commission proposal to review the 2001 regulation that is now before us contains stricter rules, which means less transparency. Accordingly, documents on trade negotiations are deemed confidential. Ultimately, this is a choice between the devil and the deep-blue sea. I therefore support the Cashman report, because, even though it is incomplete, it is, all in all, an improvement on the present Commission proposal. A more radical approach, however, with a total rejection of the Commission proposals would have been preferable because then, the Commission would have been forced to come up with a new and better proposal, which would only benefit transparency of the European institutions and really would bridge the notorious chasm between the EU institutions and the citizen."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph