Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-25-Speech-2-621-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-10-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:State of play of the Maternity Leave Directive (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20111025.31.2-621-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-10-25-Speech-2-622-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; FEMM (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2010-02-25--2014-06-30)3 member; Quaestors (2009-07-15--2012-01-16)3 substitute; AGRI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Parliament's Bureau (2009-07-15--2012-01-16)3 member; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 quaestor; European Parliament (2009-07-15--2012-01-16)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social luxembourgeois (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, as I said yesterday, when we discussed the agenda for this session, it seems utterly ludicrous to put this question to the Polish Presidency at this stage, here in plenary, when we are in the throes of the ordinary legislative procedure following the adoption at first reading of our report on reforming the Maternity Leave Directive on 20 October 2010. Admittedly, the Belgian Presidency, the Hungarian Presidency, and thus far the Polish Presidency, have failed to establish a formal position in response to the report adopted here one year ago. This being the case, the Polish Presidency certainly has no mandate to answer these bizarre questions, some of which are proposals for compromise based on the text adopted at first reading. This is not the way to proceed, Mr President. The trialogue is the place for proposing and discussing compromise solutions with a view to reaching agreement with the Council at second reading. The real question is this: why has there been no trialogue meeting yet? We all know the answer, which has been confirmed by the Polish Presidency. It is because the majority who adopted the report unfortunately fell into the trap set by the rapporteur, in that the report was so jam-packed as to rule out any dialogue. Now the rapporteur wants to back down on some points by means of an oral question to the Council. This is a strange way to behave; it disregards the new ordinary legislative procedure, undermines our standing with the Council and, what is more, has made us a laughing stock. Had I been the rapporteur, I can assure you that I would have already initiated discussions with the Council, through the proper channels. The rapporteur’s question demonstrates a paucity of understanding: an intellectual deficit. I am very sad that I was unable to spare Parliament from this, but I am even more saddened by the fact that this means that millions of European mothers, present and future, have been waiting for over a year for maternity leave to become better protected, all because of certain populist and overly ambitious MEPs. Those responsible for this situation, the rapporteur first and foremost, ought, at long last, to have realised that everything that is exaggerated is insignificant. The best solution would be for Parliament to withdraw this unfortunate report and for another person to be tasked with drafting a reasonable text …"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut off the speaker)"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph