Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-07-Speech-1-215"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080707.21.1-215"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there is a single market, there is a single currency, so it would make complete sense for there to be a single group, which in any case would be much more efficient. There would be a single speaker and things would be shared more easily. Mr Corbett is proposing to raise the threshold to 30. This seems highly dangerous, because the Irish, the French and the Dutch are able to send 31 and this would cause us real problems. Personally I think that we need a floating threshold. It would remain at 30, but the President would be able to use his or her discretion to increase it to 35 or 40 if MEPs who want to join are not fully enrolled.
During the Fourth Republic, a practice known as ‘unseating’ was used. At the start of the legislature, the majority would decide whether to renew the office of a particular Member of Parliament or to unseat him or her. This method is perfect. Mr Corbett could be in charge, for example, of unseating anyone who did not share his views. We could also adjust it: those who did not share Mr Corbett’s views would pay their salary to him or his group. Anyway, none of this matters; the Irish have proved that you can adopt whatever rules you want. It no longer works like that here, Mr Corbett."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples