Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001211.2.1-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the importance of the situation with which we are faced after Nice is such that I do not believe that Parliament should allow itself to be divided on the technical question of whether to have a resolution or not. This technicality is not sufficiently important. It is true that in this week directly following the events in Nice we in Parliament should send out a clear signal. We could do this, as Mr Cox has proposed, through the debate alone. But the tradition of this Parliament has it that we usually choose to do this by way of a resolution.
I have listened very carefully to what Mr Poettering, Mr Brok and others have said; all that this is about is issuing a first opinion. It is not about casting Parliament's position in stone…
but about saying that we will do so after an in-depth examination of the matter by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. This will happen within the next one or two months. Then this Parliament will lay down its opinion – yes or no or maybe – as it always does. This would also make it possible – and I have agreed this with the Chairman of my group – for me to vote in favour of a resolution of this kind this week. I believe that this would also allow the necessary agreement to be reached, if we say that we are making a statement, but that Parliament reserves its judgment and final position until its committee has tabled the report."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples