Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-10-Speech-4-226"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080710.18.4-226"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Leinen, I am a veteran of these topical and urgent debates. They used to be held on Fridays, then they moved to Thursday afternoons. All the groups regularly used to try the trick of making a request like this if there was some urgent matter that did not suit them, like the topic of Kashmir in this case.
That is why the Rules of Procedure were amended and the stipulation introduced that 40 Members – it may not be formulated very clearly, but that was the intention of the reform – have to be in the Chamber and contest the quorum. It was introduced because we were aware of the problem and, since then, there has never been the required number of Members present in the Chamber to request that the quorum be established, so it was always deemed to exist.
I think it is important legally to consider the intention of this rule. I am sure it can be looked up in the committee and plenary Minutes. The intention of the reform was to link the question of the quorum with a number of Members present that was high enough to prevent it becoming a frequent parlour game, for that would almost have ruined these debates. It was with the purpose of saving them that we introduced this quorum of 40 back then.
However, if we now make that 40 signatures, then the reform no longer makes sense."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples