Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-10-Speech-4-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070510.9.4-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, had I been given the speaking time I had requested before Amendment 67 was put to the vote, this could have cleared up a misunderstanding.
During the negotiations between 12 and 24 April, agreement was reached with the German Presidency of the Council about the prospective use, in Amendments 66 and 67, of the word ‘significant’ as a condition for subcontracting. The presidency offered the term ‘substantial’ by way of an alternative, but the two largest groups eventually had no need for it. They later decided, without consulting the rapporteur, to insert the word ‘major’ in the amendments jointly tabled by six groups.
Although I agree with the substance of it, I have always warned that this does not form part of a closed compromise and that, in theory, it could make a third reading necessary. Since the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats appeared certain that they could win the Council, and particularly Germany, the latter being its principal opponent, over to this amendment, I was happy to go along with them. I now gather that they have been criticised for enforcing this, given the fact that so many people have disagreed with a vote on an oral amendment in which they would like to take all of this back."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples