Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-15-Speech-4-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030515.4.4-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I apologise for coming back to the issue I raised before. Thank you very much for precisely citing the article to which reference was made. However, like Mr Wieland, I take the view that this refers to other articles, all of which I have read and which have nothing to do with the procedure adopted this morning. Then there is the option of a proposal by the President. I would like to know whether what happened this morning was a proposal by the President and was based on a decision by the Bureau, or whether the President decided to move such a proposal spontaneously. We must recognise one thing: the Rules of Procedure deliberately make amendments to the agreed agenda difficult, for after all, they should not occur all the time. On the other hand, obstacles are deliberately erected and, as we must acknowledge, there are minority rights as well. If, for example, the Conference of Presidents decides that no debate should take place on an issue, it is possible to counter this with 32 votes. In other words, very carefully balanced rights exist which also make it possible to proceed against a short-lived majority. These obstacles are deliberate. The only possible exception is ‘a proposal by the President’. Here, the question which also arises is whether that is correct. I therefore request you to clarify, firstly, whether this was a proposal by the President, and, secondly, whether it was based on a decision by the Bureau. Thirdly, I doubt whether this is an adequate legal basis for this procedure."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples