Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.2.4-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112.
It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended
and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment.
The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House
The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure.
Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house.
I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples