Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-115"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.19991117.4.3-115"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"On one occasion during the last parliamentary term, one of my explanations of vote was not approved because I was not in the Chamber. It was a question of a written explanation of vote, and the reason for the non-approval was that, if you had explanations of vote to deliver, you should be there in the Chamber, even if the explanations were in writing, so that the President could see that explanations of vote were in fact to be delivered. I am taking this matter up because I think it is important that we have some accepted form of procedure in view of what happened in my own case during the last parliamentary term. A lot of names have been read out now, you see. There are a lot of Members of the European Parliament who very often take part in the votes but always, without fail, make explanations of vote. That is why I am wondering: is it necessary to remain in the Chamber so that you can be seen to be there? Or can you proceed in this fairly lax way and continually add a whole lot of texts to the minutes about what you think or do not think?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph