Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-05-Speech-4-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030605.3.4-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to support Mr Posselt’s position in contesting the procedure that was used at the last moment, when a debate was scheduled on the subject. Whatever the subject and whatever the debate, insofar as a text has to be debated, I find it unacceptable that, simply for reasons of convenience, it should be decided at the last minute that there will be no debate. This was a question of convenience. Parliament should not establish agendas and organise the sitting according to the convenience of individuals.
Second point: I think that this shows, once again, that the agenda for Thursday afternoons indicates a clear desire to devoid this sitting of meaning, which is quite unacceptable. All the reports to be dealt with on Thursday afternoon should be treated with equal dignity. As there are few reports, so-called less important reports, Parliament empties and the reports, particularly those dealing with human rights, and others, are not subject to any debate worthy of the name for the purpose of establishing positions. Of course, Mr van Hulten explained the problem very well: a constant desire to violate the Treaty and to prevent Strasbourg’s right as a seat of Parliament from being recognised, including on Monday afternoons. Again, we can clearly see the scheming that is taking place."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples