Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-17-Speech-4-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010517.3.4-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, yesterday Mr Poettering said that he was taking note of the decision made pursuant to Rule 143 Paragraph 1 as a democrat. He wanted yesterday's majority to prove themselves to be democrats if the tables were turned. I can assure him that we are behaving like democrats. It is precisely democrats, however, who are deeply concerned about the Rules of Procedure being complied with. If, in accordance with Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure, the inadmissibility – due to legal shortcomings – of a specific item on the agenda is once moved and agreed, then in my view there is no possibility of magically reinstating it on the agenda by means of Rule 111 Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Rule 111 Paragraph 2 provides, you see, that the agenda may not be amended, except in pursuance of Rule 143, amongst others, or on a proposal from the President. That is an exclusive rule. Since here the case in Rule 143 has occurred the second case does not apply.
This means, in other words, that today's debate, in my view, is at variance with the Rules of Procedure, which is why I do not wish to contribute any further to it. I have one comment on the legal base: in COM document 2000/444 the Commission also proposed adding a legal base for the statute to Article 191. This was in July 2000. I cannot understand the assertion that this cannot have been discussed in the committee."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples