Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-19-Speech-5-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000519.1.5-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, in Item 5 of the Minutes of yesterday’s sitting on the withdrawal of Mr Le Pen’s mandate, there are two half truths in the references to my speech and to that of Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi and two half truths can add up to one untruth.
Firstly, the Minutes state that Mr Medina Ortega ‘questioned whether the letter from the committee’s chairman truly reflected the opinion of the committee as a whole’. What I said was that the letter read out by the President and sent by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi was not the opinion of the committee. It had not been adopted by the committee and therefore was not its opinion. It is not a question of whether or not it reflected the committee’s opinion: reflecting an opinion is not the same as being an actual opinion.
Secondly, the Minutes then state that Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi ‘confirmed that the letter faithfully reflected the committee’s position’. Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi is not here but, if I remember rightly, what she said was something along the lines of it being her opinion of what had taken place in committee, although it had not been adopted by the committee. Although I am aware that I am splitting hairs here, I should like to make it clear that what I said was that it was not the committee’s opinion and that, in some way, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi acknowledged that it was her opinion of what happened in committee.
In this way, the two half truths could be turned into two complete truths."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples