Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-13-Speech-1-040"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:One-minute speeches on matters of political importance2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20041213.9.1-040"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-12-13-Speech-1-0412
lpv:speaker	lp:Ashley Mote2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, at our last part-session in Strasbourg, Mr Farage was warned of the legal consequences when he spoke about Mr Barrot. The clear implication was that he could not speak his mind without fear of arrest or prosecution. Amongst others, Mr Watson said so, although he himself had previously been rude about Marta Andreasen. Many of us objected to this, but we did not object to Mr Watson's right to speak his mind. I understood this House to provide immunity from prosecution or from reprisals for words uttered in this Chamber during a plenary session. How else can a genuine parliament function, or is this not a genuine parliament? After Mr Farage spoke, the question of French law was invoked. We are on French soil but the relevance of French law is questionable, as we are endlessly reminded that EU law takes precedence over national law. So my question is this: had Mr Farage the right to speak his mind as he did and, if not, how and on what authority is Members' freedom of speech in this House curtailed?"@en1
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; UK Independence Party (2004-07-20--2005-02-01)3 substitute; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; NA (2004-07-20--2007-01-14)3 member; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Mote (NI )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph