Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-255"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.20.3-255"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We will, in fact, leave it to the relevant services to interpret this question.
All the same, I, for my part, read in the annex to the Rules of Procedure concerning Question Time that it is recommended, as regards supplementary questions, that, as a general rule, the President should allow one supplementary question from the questioner and one or, at the most, two supplementary questions put by Members belonging ideally to a political group and/or Member State different from that of the author of the main question. It seems to me that to give an even more generous interpretation of this recommendation would lead us to profoundly alter the spirit of Question Time, which is designed to have a certain tempo and to enable a large number of questions to be put. It is not a matter of allowing those MEPs who might wish to do so to conduct a general policy debate. Let us take the example of Croatia. There might be 15 or 20 of you here who wish to proceed with the supplementary questions on Croatia, which would result in the subsequent questions from other MEPs never being put. It is in order to avoid that that the regulation was devised in such a way.
Mr Ebner, you have said what you have said. The question has been sent to the relevant services. You will receive a more official response; however, I believe that the spirit of Question Time is extremely clear."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples