Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-15-Speech-3-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991215.6.3-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you, Madam President, I will be as brief as possible. In a spirit of appeasement and without wishing to cause any controversy, I want to return to the incident which occurred at the end of voting time. This concerned the point of order which I raised based on Rules 180 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure.
What actually happened? A Member pleaded a provision of the Rules of Procedure. After listening to him, Mr Martin decided to move to a vote of the House. I am not questioning Mr Martin’s extensive ability to conduct our business swiftly but, like other Members, I am questioning a general practice which seems to completely contradict the letter of our Rules of Procedure and the spirit of the parliamentary institutions.
The Rules of Procedure guarantee the rights of the minority groups. An amendment should not therefore be made by a majority of Members present but, under the very terms of our Rules of Procedure, according to extremely strict conditions. An amendment must be made through a proposal which must be discussed in the committee responsible. This committee must appoint a rapporteur who must produce a report and the amendment, if adopted, can be approved in this House only by a qualified majority consisting of over half the Members. Even then, this amendment can only apply from the opening of the next part-session.
These guarantees are absolutely essential to ensure the correct operation of this House in particular and any parliamentary institution in general. I consider that the rather Anglo-Saxon practice, in terms of legal sociology, of submitting perfectly clear provisions of the Rules of Procedure to a vote of a majority of Members present is absolutely detestable.
This is what I would have said to Mr Martin if he had not immediately decided, without even listening to me, that the comment which I wanted to make under Rules 180 and 181 was not a point of order. I must say that he acted in a manner rather lacking in courtesy and which ignored the requirements of democracy, respect for the rights of minorities and parliamentary practice. In my opinion, Mr Martin contravened the rules governing his position with regard to myself, the Member who spoke previously and other Members who wanted to speak, particularly Mrs Muscardini whom he refused to allow to speak and even threatened with expulsion.
Mrs Lienemann, I wish to protest very firmly but very calmly to you, and to President Fontaine and, I hope, to the Bureau about what I consider to be an abuse of power."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples