Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-174"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-07-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000706.6.4-174"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-07-06-Speech-4-1752
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"( ) Mr President, I shall explain my vote in writing. However, may I submit a procedural motion? Previously, when Members were present for the vote and an explanation of vote was made in writing, it was possible to leave, as the President used to state that he had received such and such a written explanation of vote on such and such a report. Now, we have to wait. Yesterday I waited 40 minutes to say that I was submitting my explanation of the vote in writing! It is a waste of time. What we are doing is already somewhat inhuman: we vote from 12 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. and then we stay here until 4 p.m. to say that we are submitting a written explanation of vote! The parliamentary services told me that I had to be here. Perhaps you would have agreed…nevertheless, could we not clarify things? I understand that Members who are not taking part in the vote on a report or resolution cannot submit a written explanation, but why must those who have taken part in the vote, who are submitting a written explanation, stay here for another half-hour? Could you clarify that?"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"FR"1 "Lulling (PPE-DE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph