Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-28-Speech-4-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991028.2.4-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will speak against the proposal, by Mr Poettering, to refer this report back to Committee.
In fact, it is an interinstitutional agreement which was signed by the previous President of this Parliament. The political persuasion of the President does not matter. It was Mr Gil-Robles, the President of our Parliament. And Parliament was in agreement. And we have to honour our own acts.
I, today, have just found out about two new reasons to re-examine this report and it surprises me, because in fact it deals with something else, of another political approach, and I would welcome its being done clearly. From the point of view, not of my political group, but of the previous Parliament, of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which unanimously approved this report, there is really no lack of clarity.
And, furthermore, with regard to the possible lack of clarity between MEPs and officials, I must say that the Bureau of the Parliament which you, Mr President, form part of, clearly adopted amendment instructions last Monday for this regulation in accordance with their competences.
Therefore, there is no lack of clarity. Furthermore, we have been subject to a summons by the Council for the last month because we have not honoured our word.
Therefore, there is no lack of clarity here. Here there is a political will to create a conflict with the Council and not to respect our word. My group therefore radically opposes this proposal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples