Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-15-Speech-1-097"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-01-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Agenda2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010115.4.1-097"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-01-15-Speech-1-0192
lpv:speaker	lp:Daniel Varela Suanzes-carpegna2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (1999-11-11--2002-01-14)3 substitute; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-09-01--2002-01-14)3 chair; PECH (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I asked for clarification; I have absolutely no intention of arguing about the appropriateness of a Commission statement. It clearly is appropriate. I want to make it clear that we support it, and I believe that it was also supported in the Conference of Presidents of political groups, but today I have a meeting with the Committee on Fisheries, an extraordinary meeting, and this issue will logically be dealt with. As Chairman of that committee, I wanted to have all the information so that I could communicate it to the other committee members. The statement is therefore welcome. In no way do we oppose it. Far from it. Our group has also supported it. So that the debate may be held in an ordered fashion, which is what most concerns me, because this issue could distort the four important fisheries debates which we have on the agenda, it would be normal for this statement to be made after that debate, and that would then give us time to continue discussing this issue, although it seems that that will not be possible. The competent services had informed me that the order of interventions would be as follows: firstly the four rapporteurs of the reports, and then the Commissioner would be given the floor to make the aforementioned statement. In that case, the rapporteurs would not be able to reply to the Commissioner during the joint debate. What I therefore ask is that the Commission statement be made first and that then the speakers should take the floor, so that everybody might have the same right as MEPs to hear, and be able to reply to, the statement by the Commissioner."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph