Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-012"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-04-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Order of business2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040419.3.1-012"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-04-19-Speech-1-0132
lpv:speaker	lp:Guido Podestà2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; CONT (2002-07-04--2004-07-19)3 member; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-president; European Parliament (2002-01-15--2004-07-19)3 vice-president; Parliament's Bureau (2002-01-15--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Forza Italia (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I refer to the Boogerd-Quaak report for which, moreover, the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has been convened today for 7 p.m. Before Easter, Mr President, I wrote to you to submit a series of points that, from a procedural and regulatory point of view, do not seem to me to be in line with our Rules of Procedure. I cited your responsibility as President, pursuant to Rule 19(2) on checking the conformity of reports with our Rules of Procedure. Specifically – and here I am also speaking on behalf of Mr Gemelli, who could not be here today but who I know wrote to you last week – the Committee on Petitions was not even consulted, that is to say it was not asked for an opinion on the report. We are clear about the lack of a legal basis and yet we have a genuinely unique situation whereby significant reference is being made, in this report, to a study document drawn up by a third party not authorised according to the standard procedures for our Parliament. It is a document which, moreover, claims to be entirely provisional since the situation has only been examined in eight out of 25 countries and since the comparisons that are due to be carried out at the end of June have not been completed. This is why, Mr President, I wonder how this report can be debated in this sitting and I ask you, therefore, to refer it back to the competent committee in order that the Committee on Petitions can make its substantial contribution. I would like to mention that this is not a responsibility of the House. Checking the appropriateness according to the Rules of Procedure is the responsibility of the person presiding over the institution, and is not in any way subject to a majority vote. You understand that at the basis of democracy, and even more so for a Parliament that is the ultimate embodiment of democracy, it is inconceivable that obligations provided for by the Rules of Procedure should be avoided by using majority voting."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph