Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Tuesday, 15 June 2010 - Strasbourg OJ edition

Proposal for a decision on the setting up and numerical strength of the Delegation to the CARIFORUM-EC Parliamentary Committee (vote)

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D).(PL) My name is Senyszyn.

These explanations are, nevertheless, absolutely unsatisfactory, taking into account the fact that before the vote, we were told that votes against and abstentions would be counted together, which is in accordance with the requirement for a qualified majority. After all, what do we mean by a ‘qualified majority’? It means there must be more votes in favour than the sum of votes against and abstentions. In this case, there is no clarity at all as to what the result of the vote was. Mr Buzek said there were 334 votes in favour, 287 votes against and 168 abstentions. In relation to this, it does indeed look as if 789 people voted, and now the explanations that some votes do not count may mean that it is some of the 334 votes in favour which do not count.

This is an absolutely unacceptable situation, in the context of the definition in most countries. I do not think that in our Parliament, it should happen to be different. ‘Qualified majority’ or ‘absolute majority’ means more votes in favour than votes against and abstentions. In this instance this situation did not exist at all, because an erroneous number of votes were cast. This means the voting machine was not working properly and the vote absolutely must be taken again.

Legal notice - Privacy policy