Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-05-Speech-4-072"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-12-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021205.3.4-072"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-12-05-Speech-4-0732
lpv:speaker	lp:Klaus-Heiner Lehne2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to move, on behalf my group, in accordance with Rule 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, that this House should decide whether the joint motion for a resolution tabled by the PPE-DE and PSE groups should be put to the vote before the other resolutions. My justification for this is as follows. On 14 November we submitted a motion for a resolution to the administration. I have here the electronic record confirming its transmission. Therefore our original motion has priority. In accordance with Rule 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, a subsequently tabled joint motion for a resolution replaces the original motion. That means that the subsequently tabled joint motion is regarded as that submitted first and should be put to the vote first. In the event that the House does not follow this procedure, I wish to ask the President to pronounce that the amendments tabled by the Liberals, the Greens and the Communists are inadmissible in accordance with Article 140(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which stipulates that only amendments that have not already been tabled once may be tabled. As the content of the joint motion for a resolution tabled by these groups is exactly the same as those amendments, only one of the two can be admissible. It does not make sense for us to follow the voting list, because we would then have to vote on the same content twice. That is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Rules of Procedure."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph