Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-11-Speech-1-028"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020311.3.1-028"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I had announced my intention of attending the session on 20 March, in order to make a formal protest against this session, which had been arranged at short notice. When such a session was arranged in December following the Laeken Summit, we were told this was not a precedent but an exception because of Laeken's importance. Now I see that evidently such an additional plenary session is to be interpolated after every meeting of the Council. That, at any rate, is the impression I get, and I wish to protest against it, as I see in it a systematic dislocation of the rhythm of the sessions decided on by the plenary, with the Thursday afternoon programmes being eroded at the same time. First the debate after the matters of urgency was abolished, and then the vote after the matters of urgency as well. I see this as a systematic dislocation of the rhythm of the sessions and I ask that it be changed, or that it be clarified for the remainder of the year whether we now want to hold such a session after every summit, as then the remaining mini-plenaries in Brussels could be done away with and everything sorted out by being deferred to the week after the summit in question."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples