Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-15-Speech-3-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990915.9.3-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, one question before I give my explanation of vote. I would like to know in what capacity Mrs Schreyer is present. She has been approved, I voted for her, but she has not yet been appointed, it is absurd. Having said that, I am very happy for her to hear what I have to say.
Precisely, I think that all this is absurd, and this is the point of my explanation of vote. I have voted four times in favour of the Commission, as I have confidence in Mr Prodi and his team. I wanted, in my explanation of vote, to draw attention to the fact that this Parliament has not proceeded correctly in legal terms. Rule 214 is strict on this point: it stipulates the precise sequence of procedures and a distinction between the time when the President is nominated and the time when the College is approved. This is intended to protect the political authority of the President. By voting in this way, what we were doing was to approve the Commission each time before actually nominating the President. With our first vote we approved the nomination of Mr Prodi, whilst the Act of 19 July had already nominated the prospective Commissioners. We then went on to the third and fourth votes on the basis of the earlier decision of 19 July. I find that Parliament has not made itself look any better in this matter. We should have been more scrupulous than the Council in respecting the very strict terms of Rule 214."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Interjection by the President: There is one day of transition, Mr Bourlanges.)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples