Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-250"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050511.19.3-250"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wish to make a statement in accordance with Rule 145. What Mr Lewandowski has said is quite inaccurate. The practice in this House, both in the plenary and in the committees, is that if an objection is made to an oral amendment proportionate to the quorum – which means one person objecting in a committee, or 37 Members standing up in the House – the amendment cannot proceed to the vote. I would point out to the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets that this practice, and this rule, is not dependent on the point in time at which such an oral amendment is moved. We all know that the written amendment generally goes into rather more detail.
The very same thing that I have described we last saw this Monday in the Committee on Budgetary Control, the chairman of which – himself also from a new Member State – kept on asking whether there were any objections to an oral amendment, and it was plain for all to see that there would have been no vote if any objection had been made.
What is going on here is an attempt at evading responsibility, at avoiding the admission that something has been done in a way that ought not to be possible. I insist that, in terms of substance – I have been given this speaking time, I am entitled to it under the Rules of Procedure – I did indeed refer to Rule 150, which precisely ..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples