Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-28-Speech-4-013"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-10-28"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991028.1.4-013"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-0142
lpv:speaker	lp:Francis Wurtz2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Parti communiste français (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 member; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 chair; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, we do not wish to re-open a debate which was concluded yesterday. I would merely like to clarify one point. There was not a unanimous opinion at the Conference of Presidents in favour of removing the reference to Michelin in the debate. There was a majority consensus, which we had to bow to, naturally, that the word Michelin should not be included in the wording. As far as I am concerned, I spoke at the Conference of Presidents to say that, of course, everyone would be free to speak in the debate as they saw fit and that, for my own part, I considered Michelin to be at the very centre of this debate on the restructuring of firms. On that basis, I do not see what objection there could be to Groups discussing a text considering that the Michelin question should be included in the resolution. I would like furthermore to specify that my group did not sign this compromise which it did not, in any case, consider satisfactory."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph