Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-10-Speech-4-224"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080710.18.4-224"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I am pleased to see that the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is here, because we have a delicate problem to solve. My dear Jo, if you will return to your seat. I will explain the problem that we have, ladies and gentlemen.
Rule 149 states that we can establish whether a quorum is present. As you know there are always large numbers in Parliament to debate its agenda and adopt the minutes, so in that case no quorum is required. However, Rule 149(3) states that if there is a prior request from at least forty Members, we can establish whether or not the quorum is present.
I have received a written request from forty Members who want us to verify whether or not the quorum is present. Therefore, obviously... Mr Posselt, please allow me to explain the facts. Obviously I consider that there is indeed a prior request that has been clearly made.
The problem is as follows: after that the Rules of Procedure are much vaguer. It does not say anywhere that the forty Members have to be present in the Chamber in order to submit this request for the quorum to be established, but it is also not excluded. I therefore have discretion. On previous occasions, which we have checked, the President of the sitting has always considered that the forty Members had to be in the Chamber in order to give some substance to Rule 149(4), which states that when the quorum is counted, the forty should be counted. That implies that the forty have to be present.
However, I have discretion, and there is also the way in which the request is worded: it concerns the vote on urgencies, which is all the urgencies; not just one of them but all of them. If we consider that the quorum request is admissible and the quorum is not present, all the urgencies will be dropped, and as you know they cannot be deferred. This means that we will not vote on Kashmir, the death penalty or Bangladesh. If we do not vote on them, we will not defer them to the next sitting. Parliament will not decide on these issues that are said to be urgent.
Before giving my opinion, I would therefore particularly like to have the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Mr Leinen, in your view, should I consider that the forty petitioners should be present in the Chamber as Rule 149(4) implies, or can I consider that a prior written request alone is sufficient, as Rule 149(3) implies? I shall listen closely to your reply."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples