Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-10-Speech-4-237"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080710.18.4-237"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"This is my interpretation having, believe me, listened to you very carefully. The way in which the request from the forty petitioners is worded does not mention the issue of Kashmir, but all the urgencies, all the urgencies this afternoon, including the death penalty. This is an important matter. We can have the debates without any problem, Mrs Gill is right. The issue solely concerns the vote, but I wanted to have this debate from the start so that there would not be ambiguity all afternoon.
I think that the reason why Parliament took the trouble to write Rule 149(4), stating that the Members who have asked for the quorum to be checked shall be counted, in accordance with paragraph 2, even if they are not in the Chamber, as Mr Posselt said, I think that this Rule was written solely to prevent Members from leaving the Chamber at the time of the count, which implies that they were present at the start of the count.
As I cannot see that the forty petitioners are present at the start of the count – unless, as Mrs Gill says, they are all present later at voting time, which we will check, in which case there will be a quorum request – I will follow the precedents set by the other presidents of sittings who, like me, have been faced with this problem, by saying that the quorum request cannot be validated because the forty petitioners are not present.
Having said that, Mr Leinen was right to draw our attention to the fact that the way in which paragraph 4 is written could cause confusion. This is why I think that this is a very good time – and it is not up to me to decide this, but to the competent bodies – for the Committee that you chair, Jo, to clarify very quickly whether or not paragraph 3 states that the Members have to be present when they submit their quorum request, and whether or not the Members have to be present when the count is done, at the start of the count. I think that the interpretation of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs will get us out of a tricky situation.
However, as far as today is concerned, given the importance of the debates, and given the opinions that you have given me, which clearly largely support what I have just said, and on the basis of the previous decisions, we are going to have our debates, and when it comes to the vote, if the forty petitioners are not present, I will not ask for the quorum to be checked. The debates will therefore begin."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples