Resoconto integrale delle discussioni

Mercoledì 16 gennaio 2013 - Strasburgo

8.5. Agenzie di rating del credito (A7-0221/2012 - Leonardo Domenici) (votazione)

– Before the vote on Amendment 130:

  Sharon Bowles (ALDE). - Mr President, these separate votes have been deemed admissible in view of their content. However, they would break the first reading agreement that was approved without dissent in the committee on 17 December. Therefore, irrespective of any merits that there might be within those amendments, I recommend that they should be voted against.

  President. − There is a request to put Amendments 2 to 116 to the vote collectively. Are there any objections?

(Objections from the EFD Group)

OK – you have asked for it!

– Before the vote on Amendment 2:

  Godfrey Bloom (EFD). - Mr President, we are very interested to see how people vote on what is a very important subject. I draw your attention to Rule 161(5). A little transparency, even in this place, would not go amiss.

  President. − I would just remind you that the Chair is supporting your right to table these amendments and we are now going to vote on them.

– After the vote:

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). - Mr President, I find the services’ interpretation, which we had to accept, very strange because, as Sharon Bowles said, it goes against the meaning if we have a compromise and then we have amendments which could make the compromise fall; this does not make sense.

It is a senseless interpretation. I am sorry to have to say this.

But I would like the President to ask the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to look into this interpretation and to give a clear interpretation, because if you have a compromise you cannot say I will vote for the compromise, and then two minutes later I will vote against the compromise. This is not a sensible parliamentary procedure.

(Applause)

  President. − The President and I did have a meeting this morning with the services. There are people on this bench who understand this hybrid approach. I do not, myself, but I entirely agree with your proposition. It should be referred to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and that will happen.