Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-25-Speech-4-170"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-09-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"sk"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080925.17.4-170"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-09-25-Speech-4-1712
lpv:speaker	lp:Zita Pleštinská2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; REGI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; IMCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; FEMM (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2009-02-04)3 unknown; Slovenská demokratická a kresťanská únia (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"− The amendment of the Rules of Procedure, as adopted by us on 8 July 2008, resulted in new rules on own-initiative reports. During this second September part-session, we have had the opportunity to see how these rules work in practice. During the Monday evening debate on several own-initiative reports, it turned out, however, that this change was not the most felicitous. Only the rapporteur and a representative of the Commission were heard in the debate on each report. The debate lost its dynamism because the shadow rapporteurs were not allowed to speak either. Even the rule that members who took part in the preparation of the report can present their comments in writing is proving problematic. The rule in force is that, during the course of one part-session, each member can react in writing only once. The procedure for voting on own-initiative reports is also proving problematic. Under the new rule, amendments are not admissible for consideration in plenary. Only an alternative motion for a resolution may be tabled on behalf of a political group. In practical terms, the shortcomings of our decision affected this very report, by Mrs Mikko, on concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union. The relatively balanced report contained some points concerning particular Member States. I think that the contents of a report touching on such a sensitive theme should remain neutral. I did not intend to vote against the report but we did not get the chance to vote on the motion for a resolution tabled by our political group, the PPE-DE Group. I am asking for this rule to be changed."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph