GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Since industrialisation, food prices have been kept artificially low, which has also enabled industrial wages to remain low. Since then, farmers have been forced to produce more and more for ever decreasing rewards. The EU subsidy system was a means of achieving greater economies of scale and increasing production per hectare. Revenues from taxes go some way towards compensating farmers for their lack of income. The survival of small-scale farmers and villages in southern Europe has become highly dependent on this subsidy policy. They therefore regard the current common agricultural policy as the best the EU can offer, even if they would like to see funds allocated more fairly. They regard every change as a brutal, neoliberal attack. They are afraid that a new system will only serve as a subsidy on land ownership and land speculation and will not be able to stop the depopulation of the countryside. In northern Europe, on the other hand, most of the small farmers have already been ‘cleared away’, and public opinion regards the agricultural funds as a kind of bureaucracy, a waste of money and environmental pollution which must be brought to an end as soon as possible. I did and do agree with the demand to switch from production subsidies to income guarantees and the protection of the landscape. The current proposal, however, seems to be primarily aimed at winning over the Americans in the WTO with a view to exporting other EU products.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have taken the floor, for the last time today, to explain the way I voted on the conclusions of the Lisbon Summit. I am not very happy: I would have preferred our 15 heads of government to have been more effective, more decisive, more energetic and more courageous. With regard to social security, I would have preferred it if the decision had, at last, been taken to create a single European pension for the Union. When the European citizens grow old, all the governments abuse them. They are told off for living too long, whereas the real problem is that their contributions have been wasted. The European citizens call upon the Union to set up a single European pension and thus show itself to be more capable, a better administrator and less careless with money than the individual governments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there are big problems with the Members' Statute. In the end I decided to support it, but I have major problems because the expenses issue is not separated from the salaries issue. A lot of people in my own country will be very put out that technically a lot of Members voted to increase their salaries by a huge amount. This will not go down well in the individual Member States.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I join in the general congratulations of Mrs Ferreira on reaching what is a sensible and welcome compromise on this revision of the directive. I certainly support her final tweaks of the text in the three amendments that she has put forward. However, I have to say to Mrs Schörling that I cannot accept Mr Lannoye's fourth amendment. It is unrealistic and it is one that he tried at first reading. When I criticised it at that point, his response was that 'it showed that knowledge can develop and that development sometimes leads us to question the authorisations that were given previously'. Well, many regulatory bodies across the world have evaluated aspartame and none have come forward with evidence that suggests that knowledge has developed in such a way as to doubt previous authorisations. So, are we to keep on re-evaluating the evidence until we get the result that Mr Lannoye wants? Where are the wide criticisms of the SCF opinion? Have any Member State competent bodies contradicted it? Has the World Health Organisation contradicted it? Who are we to believe – a large number of national regulatory bodies, legally responsible and accountable for examining evidence objectively on the basis of science or, for example, the Internet campaign that we have seen only this week suggesting that the tragic ferry accident at Staten Island in New York was somehow due to aspartame? Scaremongering of this sort can only undermine public confidence in the bodies set up to protect our food and our health. With such widespread consensus from regulatory bodies, it seems wasteful to divert the overstretched EFSA from meaningful work into an endless cycle of re-evaluation. There are safety considerations with the use of aspartame. If you look at the UK Food Standard Agency guidance it says that there is a small group of people who cannot safely consume aspartame. They are the sufferers of the inherited disease PKU, who are unable to metabolise the amino acid phenylaline. Since aspartame was also a source of this, all food products containing aspartame are clearly labelled to that effect, as the Commissioner said. That is the right way to tackle this issue. It is time that we restored some perspective to this and stopped undermining the work of our regulatory bodies. It is time to listen to the scientists and not the scaremongers. I commend Mrs Ferreira's report as it stands, with the Commissioner's proposals. I hope that is now acceptable to Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today we saw at the airport that nature can sometimes turn against technology. To avoid deliberately u tting nature, we must draft effective climate policy. The emission of CO2 must be drastically reduced. A majority in this Parliament has been pleading for years that environmental costs should be passed on to the consumer. Environmental tax must be incorporated into air fares, especially in the air transport sector. So far, however, the European Union has failed, for there is no climate tax. Fortunately, there is also some good news. For a fee, the organisation Trees for Travel plants trees after each plane trip you make. Every time you fly, you can buy a climate certificate to balance out the emission of CO2 from your trip. Despite a lack of legislation, we can at least put our money where our mouth is. The Dutch delegation in the Group of the has decided to back this initiative and to buy climate certificates in Strasbourg this week for their plane trips. I urge the President and all the other fellow MEPs who travel regularly by air to do the same.

Political group: PSE
I abstained on this motion for a resolution. I regret that the European Parliament has not felt able to show consistency in rejecting the amendments asking Turkey to continue dialogue on acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide. In fact, last year, Parliament openly committed itself to calling upon the Turkish government to recognise this period of its history. Today, under a cloak of expediency, this House has demonstrated its hypocrisy. As regards Turkey's possible accession to the European Union, I would remind you that the real question of the frontiers of Europe is still an open one. At a distance from the peoples involved, we carry on discussing the hypothetical accession of this country to the EU without putting the real question, which is to do with the identity and outline of Europe. The Commission and Parliament would be better advised to explore ways by which Turkey can be associated with the EU rather than directly integrated into it.

Political group: PPE-DE
The EU's Budget procedure is becoming a set ritual every year. Parliament wants to spend more money than the European Commission is proposing, but the Council guards the Member States’ purses by wanting to spend less. The result is an ever-increasing disparity between the expenditure ceiling agreed in 1998 and actual spending. As a representative of the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, I am faced with two choices each time. My party defends the maintaining or increasing of government expenditure intended for better public services, a better living environment and more solidarity with people in the poor parts of the world. It goes without saying that this will entail higher taxation levels than the governing neo-liberal politicians want. These taxes have to be collected from the top earners and from companies. However, accepting higher spending and higher taxes does not mean that we are happy to spend a great deal more money on an unnecessarily centralised EU. We regard part of the EU’s expenditure as a waste that only goes to support bureaucracy and megalomania. Even the structural funds and the common agricultural policy, which could deliver benefits for poor regions and small farmers, are sometimes spent on the wrong things. The only points on which I can support the increase in the budget proposed by the Group are those relating to social funds, the Northern Ireland peace fund and cohesion funds. - Report Pack (A5-0419/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, Madam President, for your words of solidarity for Algeria at the beginning of the sitting. It is said that you find out who your true friends are in times of need and I believe, in fact, that now is the time to show our alliance with the Algerian people by providing substantial emergency aid of various kinds to help them contend with the extensive damage caused by the torrential rain that has struck Algiers and northern Algeria. A natural disaster of this kind is always a huge blow for any population, particularly the most deprived, but, in this case, Algeria is also a country that has already suffered so much due to Islamic terrorism, economic and political crises, which continue to dash everyone’s hopes. My group is, therefore, calling on the European Union to make the necessary resources available to help those affected by the disaster and, secondly, we believe that we must draw lessons, and not only in conjunction with the authorities and Parliament, but also with the relevant representatives of civil society in Algeria, from this tragedy and define priorities for our future cooperation. If I may, Madam President, I would like to briefly give some information about another subject, since the request to add this item to the topical and urgent debate was rejected, that of the case of Leïla Zana. The Bureau of my group recently held a meeting in Ankara. We requested the opportunity to meet the Sakharov Prize winner, of course, but we were refused outright, and what we find particularly disappointing, especially since this concerns the Sakharov Prize, is that we were unable, at a time when we are combating terrorism, to meet Leïla Zana. I think that it was only fair that my fellow Members are given this information and I also hope that the Commission is aware of this information since the Commission is currently drafting a progress report on relations between Turkey and the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as Mr Hudghton said, and as Members of the House will recall, I rose on Monday to say that I thought an element in this report is inadmissible because it lacks a legal basis. This is rather a 'doomsday' weapon and I would be unhappy if we had to use it where there is a simpler method available to us for reconsidering the question before it finally comes back to the House. It is a very important point. Paragraph 6 of the Cunha report, as I read it – and as many of my colleagues read it – effectively proposes undercutting the principle of relative stability which has, since 1983, been the very foundation of the common fisheries policy and which indeed Commissioner Fischler at his hearing before this House said was fundamental to the common fisheries policy. Introduction of a scheme of quota penalties would undercut it badly and that is what paragraph 6 suggests. That should be referred back and considered in committee, both in the Committee on Fisheries and in the Committee on Legal Affairs. I have pleasure in asking the House to support Mr Hudghton’s motion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the German Presidency has had to assert itself within a particularly dramatic context. The first six months of this year have demonstrated, once more, the need for European integration on the one hand and the need to continue the process of enlargement on the other. With regard to the latter, the war in Kosovo reminds us of the wisdom of the Copenhagen criteria which stipulate, amongst other things, respect for human rights on the part of all applicant countries as a precondition for their accession to the European Union. The Cologne European Council, which unquestionably confirmed this double ambition, shows us the enormity of the task still to be undertaken and the additional efforts which are required in this area. The European Council meeting in Cologne, despite all the efforts of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council – to which I would like to pay particular tribute – still nevertheless raises some major questions. I would like to highlight two of them. The first relates to point 53 of the conclusions of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council, and I would like to ask the German Foreign minister how we should interpret the mandate of the Intergovernmental Conference and particularly – and I quote – the possible use of qualified majority voting in the Council – end of quote – in view of the declaration of Belgium, France and Italy, annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam. I would like to ask you whether these three Member States who, in Amsterdam, made the reinforcement of the institutions an essential condition, and therefore a prerequisite, for the conclusion of preliminary accession negotiations, still maintain the reservations annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, or whether they have moderated their position in the meantime. My second question concerns the common security policy, particularly with regard to defence. In my opinion, any European Union defence policy will overlook the basic problem for as long as the Member States do not accept the indivisible nature of security in the territory of the European Union. We are still not there. To this end, I would like to ask Minister Fischer if he envisages, apart from the conclusions of Cologne, a short or medium-term perspective on allowing accession to those countries which have not signed up to Article 5 of the amended Treaty of Brussels, that is, the mutual assistance clause which binds countries which are currently Members of the Western European Union. I believe that the subsequent and essential stages will depend on this question if we want to realise the contents of the provisions of Chapter J IV of the Treaty of Maastricht.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Secretary of State, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has, since the Cologne Extraordinary Summit in June 1999, possessed a European security and defence identity which, for the first time, is truly worthy of the designation ‘common’. We have achieved great steps forward in this area, which will allow us to use the Rapid Reaction Force, which will be ready for action from 2003 onwards, to independently carry out what are termed the Petersberg tasks, at least on our own continent and in any case with an appropriate UN mandate. Mr President-in-Office, I would like to add a brief observation to your statements and make a major request of the Spanish Presidency. Taking the observation first, you have described the Rapid Reaction Force as being also an instrument against terrorism in the European Union. I would say that, in our democratic states, the combating of terrorism is primarily a task for the internal forces of law and order and the justice authorities. Should military actions also become necessary, as they did after 11 September, what we call the principle of the rule of law nevertheless remains untouched. My request to the Spanish Presidency is that, where military operations are mounted under the sole leadership of the European Union, there must be the possibility of falling back on the material resources of NATO, especially in transport and reconnaissance capacities, and also, to some extent, in the command structures. It is truly astonishing that the agreement we need between the EU and NATO has, through Turkey's resistance, not yet come about. The proposal that Great Britain and the United States, without the EU's mandate, presented at the Laeken Summit, is unsuitable and unacceptable. So I ask that the Spanish Presidency should see to it that we get an agreement with NATO, so that our security and defence policy may be secured. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank both the ministers from Sweden, as well as the Commission, for their comments. Some people describe Europe as a Europe which locks people out. They term it ‘Fortress Europe’. Those of us who want to create a humane Europe, which takes into account people with a need for protection, and who are seeking a humane asylum and refugee policy use the concepts of freedom, justice and security. I share the view of the Commission and the presidency that the current deficiencies in the field of asylum and refugees are linked to the problem that we have no common policy. At the moment, there are different policies in different countries. The policy we have to develop must be based on international conventions, needs for protection and family reunification. I also noted that, when it came to carriers’ liability, debated by Parliament at length during the last part-session, the presidency was to take into account the opinions of Parliament. At least that is the way I clearly understood it. I also think that we should distinguish between immigration of labour, and asylum and refugee policy. The latter is based on people’s need for protection. The former is based on the fact that we are suddenly realising that we will have a shortage of labour in the years to come, and here we are considering our need for labour. In this context, we talk far too little about integration policy, as linked to asylum and refugee policy is an integration policy where we look after those people who come here with a need for protection. Today, however, we are seeing these people remain largely outside society, that they do not have the same rights and that they are not utilised on the labour market. They tend to be found among the 14 million unemployed. Before we talk about the immigration of labour – it is possible that there may be a question of this – I would primarily like to see us emphasising integration policy and a common asylum and immigration policy.

Political group: PSE
The rapporteur takes it as given that the so-called first pillar – that is, agricultural production – is wasting away and suggests mitigating the consequences of this by reinforcing the second pillar, that is, rural development. In an attempt to turn the situation around, the report proposes reducing the budget for the first pillar on the basis of 'eco-conditionality' criteria, in other words, using ecological pretexts to cut subsidies and transfer headings to the second pillar in order to maintain budgetary prudence. This move will open the floodgates to abolishing subsidies on a whole series of products which pseudo-scientific 'studies' will label as harmful to the environment. Finally, as far as enlargement is concerned, the report goes along with the idea of a ten-year transitional period for candidate countries, hence promoting a twin-track CAP of countries with rights and obligations and countries with obligations and reduced rights. The whole report is driven by an attempt to put a spin on 'Agenda 2000' and enlargement on terms which are unacceptable to the candidate countries. We shall vote against the report and stand by small and medium-sized farmers in their fight to overturn everything which the rapporteur takes as given and tries to put a spin on and the anti-farming policy which is wiping out and bankrupting European farmers with mathematical precision.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in this debate I shall focus exclusively on the alarm raised by the Commission amongst European tobacco growers further to its hare-brained proposal for reform of the sector. One might well wonder if it really is so difficult to understand the President of the Council of Agriculture Ministers. I refer to Mr Alemanno, the Italian Minister. He spoke eloquently about the social importance of retaining this crop, notably in Spain, Greece and Italy. Tobacco imports into the European Union are bound to increase. The President of the Agriculture Council has argued along these lines. The Spanish Agriculture Minister is of the same opinion. So too are the authorities in my constituency, Extremadura. It is one of the regions set to suffer most if this body blow to rural society is actually delivered. I would point out yet again that the move could have devastating consequences for the region. Some 20 000 families would be affected. Loss of income would be of the order of EUR 200 million. I must also state that no alternative use of the land has yet been identified, other than leaving it uncultivated. Allow me to make some summary comments. The Commissioner has endeavoured to demonstrate that the Commission undertook thorough research. It should therefore be in a position to provide figures for the drop in tobacco consumption in the Union following reform. It should also be able to provide information on the tariffs to be imposed in order to restrict imports of tobacco into the Union. I trust the Commission took careful note of events in the House this morning during the vote on the budget. Parliament rejected Amendments Nos 723 and 338. The amendments would have resulted in drastic reductions of tobacco premiums. Once again, Parliament has demonstrated its understanding of the social damage a cut in premiums would inflict on so many rural European families. I must reiterate that there is nothing else they can grow. I know the Commissioner for Agriculture has feelings. I would like to hope he has taken this political message on board.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, yesterday, I followed with great interest the debate on the reform of development cooperation policy and the debate with the Commission on the grey zone between relief and development cooperation. I fully concur with the report by Mr Van den Berg. I should like to stress that, wherever I go, I hear complaints from women in situ about the lack of involvement and the lack of participation in the practical implementation of reconstruction. In Somalia, for example, the women are on the spot but the men take the decisions in Kenya, far removed from reality. I therefore believe that the verbal concern about gender aspects is not sufficient. We must insist on women being actively involved in the field; they are sufficiently responsible to consider, and help assess, the way in which reconstruction should take place in practice.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all I would like to say that relations between Galicia and the North of Portugal have always been special, because the Miño river has never marked a boundary, it has not separated, but rather united. However, unfortunate events such as those which took place on 22 June, caused by a small number of people, must not become the general rule. It is therefore important to adopt measures which will prevent, in all events, their repetition and that the sanction adopted by the competent parties shall serve as an example. Therefore, those of us from the other side of the river – and we are all Europeans – wanted to know how this issue is being dealt with and whether exemplary decisions have been taken so that these events will not be repeated in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE