Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-11-18-Speech-2-185"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-11-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20081118.26.2-185"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-11-18-Speech-2-1862
lpv:speaker	lp:Philip Claeys2
lpv:spokenAs	member; AFET (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Vlaams Belang (2004-11-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; TRAN (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3 member; SEDE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3 member; NA (2007-11-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". I voted against the report for various reasons. There was no serious debate in committee. Only 7 out of the 28 members were present. In fact, it was not even possible to have a debate in the plenary meeting. Even before the vote in committee, when Mr Vanhecke was not allowed to learn the content of the report, it was discussed on Flemish public television. This is an outrage. Worst of all, though, is the conclusion of the report. They recommend that immunity be lifted, although Mr Vanhecke is not the author of the controversial text, and the Belgian Constitution clearly stipulates that only the author can be prosecuted if known. On account of this crummy dossier, Mr Vanhecke is running the risk of losing his political rights, since the division of power and the Belgian court’s independence only exist in theory. This matter is a political manoeuvre to single out a Flemish nationalist opposition leader. It is a disgrace that the EP should let itself be taken advantage of for this purpose."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph