Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.1.2-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I speak with regard to Item 14 of the Minutes on the waiver of Mr Pacheco Pereira’s parliamentary immunity. We opposed this waiver, Madam President, which answers the question that you were just asking, in the name – to quote from Paragraph D of Mr MacCormick’s report – in the name of the “independent nature of European parliamentary immunity compared with national parliamentary immunity”. I would remind you that the Greek word for such independence would be ‘auto nomoi’, which means ‘having its own laws’, and as the rapporteur says “its own rules”.
It follows that, if the Parliament has its own rules concerning the waiver of parliamentary immunity and if its discretion is not limited when the national authority requires that immunity be waived, then it is even more true that, this being so much more minor an issue, it also has its own rules when it is required to terminate a Member of Parliament’s mandate. It has its own laws, its ‘autonomy’, it has discretionary powers and its discretion is not limited. Yesterday, Madam President, you had discretionary powers, as did Parliament, and there were no limits on this discretionary power. That was the legal error on your part, Madam President."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples