Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-023"

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.20060515.12.1-023"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-15-Speech-1-0242
lpv:speaker	lp:Martin Schulz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Presidents (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3,3 substitute; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3,3 member; DROI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3,3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3,3 chair; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, like many other Members, I have had to consider this issue in the Conference of Presidents, but, not being a lawyer like Mr Lehne, I had imagined it would be rather more straightforward. Now, though, the lawyers have spoken, and I have to concede that I did not understand what Mr Lehne said, but perhaps that is my fault. I do not, right now, want to weigh up the pros and cons of Mrs Kaufmann’s and Mr Lehne’s arguments, but I do have a request to make; it is that we should stipulate that immunity matters no longer be dealt with by the Committee of Presidents, since I, as a group chairman, do not feel equal to dealing with such a complex process. My sense of justice has led me to agree to this matter being referred back, since if, in a committee, only eight people vote and certain groups are not represented at all, I think it would be fairer and better to avoid a formal error and send the matter back. If, though, sending it back results in one being committed, then that is something we will have to live with. Having been shown where I was wrong, I think we should do as Mr Lehne suggests, but I would, at the same time, ask that immunity cases be in future considered only in the plenary."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph