Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-20-Speech-2-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040420.6.2-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, further to the statement you have just made, I must point out that if I am not mistaken there are three issues arising under the same item in the order of business. Firstly, there is Mrs Stauner’s report. Next there is the decision, proposed by the Group of the European People’s Party; to request a Commission statement on the Eurostat case, with a resolution. Lastly, there is a proposal for a motion of censure tabled by part of the PPE. I am not sure if the whole PPE Group supports this proposal. It would be appropriate to check. There are therefore three issues relating to the same item in the order of business. In the interests of rationalising Parliament’s workload, it would be best to discuss these issues jointly or to delete the Eurostat case.
I should like to raise another very important matter too, Mr President. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Procedure, I would ask you to state which Treaties are applicable to consideration of a motion of censure. Currently we are working in a Parliament composed of Members representing fifteen Member States. When Parliament votes on 3 May, however, it will be composed of Members from twenty-five Member States and the enlarged Commission will be in place. I believe this is an important constitutional matter. I am not thinking only of the new Commissioners, who will be welcomed with a motion of censure. I feel strongly that it is important to deal with this matter before moving on to consider the motion of censure and vote on it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples