Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-024"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-01-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Multiannual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets (1997)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000120.3.4-024"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-01-20-Speech-4-0252
lpv:speaker	lp:Daniel Varela Suanzes-carpegna2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (1999-11-11--2002-01-14)3 substitute; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-09-01--2002-01-14)3 chair; PECH (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I wish to raise another point of order, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, with regard to what has been said here. We have already voted on the basis. We have voted on the question of whether one of the principles contained in paragraph 6 was admissible or not. A large majority have rejected referral back to committee, on the understanding that this point was admissible. We cannot take another vote, with all this manoeuvring, on the same question, when they are now saying that they are applying Rule 143, since the same cause for inadmissibility is being cited. I would like to point out to you that Rule 143 speaks of inadmissibility for formal reasons, such as its not being on the agenda, a lack of linguistic versions, etc., but for not reasons of basis, especially if it has already been discussed and voted on. We cannot deal once again with another procedural motion, using another Rule, when this House has already voted on the basis of the question and has already said that it should not be referred back to committee. Therefore, there should be no more parliamentary manoeuvring and filibustering and I believe that the question should be cleared up, and it has been cleared up, by a majority in this House."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph