Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-14-Speech-1-129"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-06-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Rights to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"mt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100614.22.1-129"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-06-14-Speech-1-1302
lpv:speaker	lp:Simon Busuttil2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-14--2013-04-05)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland and Norway and to the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee and the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2013-04-05)3,3 member; PETI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 substitute; IMCO (2010-06-02--2012-01-18)3,3 member; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 unknown; Partit Nazzjonalista (2009-07-14--2013-04-05)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo (2009-09-16--2013-04-05)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (2009-09-16--2013-04-05)3,3
lpv:translated text	"The proposal we have before us this evening is a good one which deserves our support, since it grants more – rather than fewer – rights to European Union citizens. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will be voting in favour, but we will not be voting for the amendments which will be tabled, so as not to upset the delicate compromise which has been reached. During this speech I would, however, like to address the somewhat ambiguous situation which has arisen between the Council and the Commission with regard to the presentation of this legislative proposal. In fact, not one, but two proposals were tabled. Last December we had a legislative proposal by the Council of Ministers, and in March of this year the Commission presented another proposal about exactly the same subject. The question which arose before this Parliament concerns the ambiguous matter of which text we are we going to work on in this Parliament. In fact, I do not think this is the first time that something similar has happened, and nor will it be the last. In fact, we have to deal with another proposal from the Council of Ministers concerning the European Protection Order, while the European Commission has already declared its intention to present its own proposal. The Council is asking us to accept its proposal – I am referring to the proposal regarding the European Protection Order – while the Commission is asking us not to accept it. Those who drafted the Treaty, who empowered the Council to present its own legislative proposals, certainly never intended to create ambiguous situations of this sort, where two institutions argue about whose proposal should be accepted. In my view, in cases where the Commission intends to present a proposal, it should be allowed to do so, while the Council should refrain from presenting its own proposal. Otherwise, we would end up in situations characterised by ambiguity and bickering, which are best avoided."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph