Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-031"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Order of business2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060213.9.1-031"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-02-13-Speech-1-0322
lpv:speaker	lp:Martin Schulz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Presidents (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; DROI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 chair; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I am in absolute agreement with what Mr Cohn-Bendit has said, but I would also like to say that I am rather irritated about much of what has been going on here. I had, quite properly, spoken to a motion on the order of business, on which one can speak in favour or against; I spoke in favour of the motion and you reprimanded me for it, saying that we had asked for a debate, and I still cannot follow your reasoning. We are now having a debate, and Mr Voggenhuber is complaining that that is not right either, on the grounds that only group chairmen are speaking. Somehow or other, then, we have to get some structure behind what we are doing, and so I will now put it to you that if the motion from the Liberal Group was called for debate despite being received outside the specified timeframe, then there is no less justification for my colleague Mr Swoboda’s motion that, it having been decided that a resolution is to be drafted, we ask that the vote on it be deferred until the next mini-plenary in Brussels, which is the first possible opportunity to do so. I would ask that we now have a vote, as the rules of procedure require, following one speaker in favour and one against."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph