Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-070"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-03-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030311.5.2-070"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-11-Speech-2-0712
lpv:speaker	lp:Georg Jarzembowski2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Japan (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I, too, think it would be right to vote on Amendment No 13 first, but I do believe that, in the event of Amendment No 13 being adopted – which I hope it will be – all the others will lapse. I do not see the need to vote on the others. As regards the question of language, we should not be having a great debate about it right now, but should proceed as follows. The committee wants – as, I assume does this House – to delete the words ‘regular land-based personnel’ from the Council's version. Whatever is in the other part – ‘seafaring personnel’ – we do not want to change it, and it should remain in the text the way it is in the Council version, so that questions of language do not bring us into conflict with the Council. So what we are aiming to do is to delete the words ‘regular land-based personnel’, and we should approximate the terminology used in English, French, and so on to the Council's Common Position, as we should not deviate from that. Thus far, I believe that Mr Piecyk and I are of one mind without having to engage in great linguistic discussions."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph