Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-13-Speech-3-570-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-06-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120613.31.3-570-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-06-13-Speech-3-571-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Matthias Groote2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2012-01-23--2014-06-30)3 chair; ENVI (2012-01-23--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ITRE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Arab Peninsula (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; S&D (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	". A blue card, because we have now heard a great many critical voices. I know that Mr Seeber has dealt with the procedure in Parliament very well, having taken this over from János Áder. My question is simply: we are now concluding this at first reading, as we do for as much as 65% of our environmental legislation. My question to the rapporteur is whether we might not perhaps have been able to achieve greater transparency, even though the Council took a blocking attitude, if we had taken it to a second reading? This is a fundamental issue. Richard, I realise that you took this over. However, I would like to hear the current rapporteur’s view on this."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph