Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-064"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-06-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020610.4.1-064"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-06-10-Speech-1-0652
lpv:speaker	lp:Christa Randzio-plath2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3,3 chair; ECON (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3,3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, south-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, reforming the Rules of Procedure so as to enable Parliament to function in a particularly efficient, democratic and transparent fashion was certainly a very major challenge for the rapporteurs. I think it can also help to consolidate plenary's political image. It is therefore very important to steer clear of every tendency to make plenary's work bureaucratic. On behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I welcome the incorporation of proposals for dialogue with the European Central Bank and also those on the economic policy guidelines. In this context, I would like to emphasise that relationships between the institutions change over a certain period of time. We really do have to change the nature of these relationships and fill them with new life over and over again. This should be a general characteristic of future debates on the Rules of Procedure; these debates should not be matters of no consequence, but should make it clear that, in this Parliament of ours, rules are not made as ends in themselves but, on the one hand, they are made in order to improve the quality of the work done and to tighten up working procedures and give them more focus and, on the other hand, in order to bring to light those essential aspects that are important for enhancing Parliament's political standing in the eyes of the public. It is at this point that I have to touch on something which, in my view, the rapporteurs and we as plenary have to reconsider. I consider Amendment No 59 to Article 110a to be problematic. I can see the justified concern to do everything possible to really get the right and important political debates conducted in plenary, but not all debates on foreign or security policy are, by definition, of greater value than, for example, the issues that are brought to a conclusion in the specialist committees, because it has become clear that only a huge majority can prepare the way for a second reading and for success in a contest with the Council. The new rules must not lead to a situation in which, at the conclusion of a debate in a committee, we organise non-existent pseudo-majorities to vote against a report in order to comply with the formal requirements for getting it debated in plenary. I really would consider that an avoidable piece of bureaucracy. Perhaps the rapporteurs will come up with a better selection procedure and thus enable us to reach agreement this week. I really do think it important that this amendment should not be adopted in the form proposed. I would also ask the rapporteur to clarify what he expects Parliament and the committees to do with Amendments Nos 87 and 88, as we are not an executive, for which farthings or pennies or cents and …"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut the speaker off)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph