Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-022"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Order of business2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060515.12.1-022"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-15-Speech-1-0232
lpv:speaker	lp:Klaus-Heiner Lehne2
lpv:spokenAs	member; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ECON (2005-10-27--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-01-19--2007-06-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will start by asking you to reject this motion as inadmissible. The immunity procedure is subject to Rule 7, which has the last word to say on the subject. Rule 7 (8) states that: ‘The report of the committee shall be placed at the head of the agenda of the first sitting following the day on which it was tabled.’ The Rule goes on to say that: ‘The proposal(s) for a decision contained in the report shall be put to the vote at the first voting time following the debate.’ That is a binding rule, the purpose of which is to speed up the immunity procedure, and if this motion were to be permitted, it would be virtually capable of annulling it. If you do not reject this motion as inadmissible, I would nevertheless ask that it be thrown out altogether on the grounds of irrelevance. The reason why it is irrelevant is that the resolution we, in the Committee on Legal Affairs, adopted was adopted unanimously, that this resolution is not a matter of dispute between the groups, and also that there is no doubt about the procedure that Rule 7 (8) lays down to deal with it. If you object to the substance of this motion, then all you have to do is to vote against it. If it then gets majority support, the result is automatically reversed. It therefore makes no sense that this matter be either adjourned or deferred, and so I ask that this motion for a resolution be voted on in the plenary tomorrow."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph