GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, the most important aim of the Nice Summit is enlargement of the European Union and the EU’s preparation for this enlargement. I might also add, on behalf of my group, that we are fully committed to enlargement taking place as soon as possible. However, it is important at this stage to discuss what is to happen post-Nice. For this we need vision, and this vision has been expressed over the last few months. Our group strongly supports constitutionalising the European Union Treaties, and this also means that the reform of the Treaties should be open, with civil society being able to participate in this process. We consider the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be a success. It certainly could have been worded better, and, indeed, it can be honed and polished after Nice. No doubt in time it will come to form a part of the European Union’s constitution. But we wish there were at least a reference to it in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, as our citizens should be already benefiting from this Charter. As regards decisions that are at present closer to us, we cannot emphasise enough the importance of qualified majority decisions. The Nice Summit cannot succeed unless the system of qualified majority voting is extended. It is very important that the European Parliament is closely involved in the codecision procedure, as, otherwise, it will be even more difficult than before to decide on legislation. The European Parliament will bring transparency to this decision-making process. Let us take the example of environment taxation. In our discussions on climate policy we often criticise the United States of America for not wanting to compromise its sovereignty and enter into international agreements on climate protection, but there are Member States among us which also insist on keeping what they imagine is their sovereignty intact, and which do not wish to switch to a system of qualified majority decisions, for example, in the matter of environmental taxation. We have to break free from this. President Prodi spoke on the subject of trade policy. We all certainly want the European Union to have a strong role in the globalising world, but, Mr Prodi, our group sees trade policy becoming open and transparent as a precondition to the Commission having more powers, and, at present, that is not the case. Finally, I would also like to say that it is important at present to ensure that the European Union does not become a community just for the big Member States. One issue Parliament has had problems with is that we should realise that Parliament’s size in the future cannot be categorically limited to 700, as this would also limit the manifestation of pluralism here in Parliament. That would result in a shift towards a two-party system, and that cannot be democratic. I would appeal to Mr Barón Crespo for understanding in this matter, as I have a feeling that the other Group Chairmen do support this aim to leave the matter of the size of the European Parliament to some extent open. This would be a very important position for Parliament to adopt, and we will be able to vote on it tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the reason for this request is not a political reason, to do with any one group. The President, as Mr Poettering well knows, since he was with me in the seminar that he invited us to, insists that we should hold comprehensible debates. Well, if we are going to hold a debate on the Union’s budget, the obvious thing is also to debate the broad guidelines for economic policy. That is the only reason. There is nothing else behind this proposal. I hope Mr Poettering does not have a cold, since he is well wrapped up at the moment. I hope he is feeling alright. (Parliament rejected the proposal) Thursday: President. – I have received two requests concerning topical and urgent debate on subjects of major importance. The first is a request from the Group and Group for the item ‘Situation in Chechnya’ to be removed.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I believe that the promotion of employee financial participation is very important both for company employees and for the development of companies. Perhaps greater participation and, thus, also a greater acceptance of responsibility can even help make companies more successful and profitable and so contribute to increased employment and increased access to capital. Some people even maintain that the development of various types of financial participation systems could be a possible way of achieving increased growth and faster compliance with the Lisbon strategy objectives. That would be a mercy worth quietly asking for, since the Lisbon objectives appear more and more to be taking on the character of illusions. Whatever the case may be, profit-sharing systems of various kinds can in any event create good incentives for employees, give rise to greater enthusiasm for the job in hand and strengthen the link between company and employees. To that extent, we are in agreement, Mr Menrad. When it comes to these aspects of the content of the report, I think that Mr Menrad has done some quite excellent work and carried out a good analysis of the problems that, in spite of everything, are involved in this issue. I do not however share the view that this is something that should be decided or debated at EU level. The rapporteur has himself written in the report that it is unnecessary to harmonise the provisions for financial participation systems and that it is neither desirable nor practicable to do so, either, because it would impede the flexibility of Member States’ policies. I agree with that. Subsequently, Mr Menrad says, however, that a European framework is needed for the promotion of employee financial participation through the coordination of agreements on general principles, social security issues and fiscal aspects. Why, though? The coordination of models and conditions would benefit neither companies nor employees. I therefore see no reason why any of the EU institutions should have any dealings with this issue, with its host of specific requirements and considerations of which it will be necessary also to take account. Companies’ profit-sharing systems are the concern of companies and their employees, and it is therefore with them that this issue should reside. The Moderate delegation will therefore vote against the report, for someone must take a different view.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I am among those who believe it is extremely important for us to involve the developing countries in trade and for us to open up our markets. Not all developing countries are the same, however. There is one concern, especially when it comes to agriculture for, among the developing countries, there are some that are extremely competitive in terms of agricultural production, something that may be problematic for the EU. I should therefore like to ask the Commissioner a question: what strategy does the Commission have for coping with this, but without thereby halting the project of involving the developing countries and, in a short space of time, making them major purchasers specifically of agricultural products?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like make a comment in connection with a meeting held last night by various Members of Parliament from all groups. The purpose of the meeting, which was attended by several Vice-Presidents and Quaestors, together with the architects who designed this building, was to discuss how we could improve our working conditions. We discovered during the meeting that the lovely white curtain behind you, Mr President, in fact conceals a huge window which, if the curtain were drawn back, would afford a wonderful view over the river. We were told that the curtain was closed so that you would not have your back to the light and to improve the lighting during debates. But what is to prevent us, before the sitting is opened or when you close the sitting, opening the curtains and enjoying the apparently magnificent view behind you? I am more than happy for our House to be illuminated by the brilliance of our debates but a little real sunlight on our bubble of democracy from time to time would not come amiss. I think it would be a nice idea if you could discuss opening this curtain from time to time with the ushers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too want to begin by thanking Mrs Smet for the excellent job she has done and, in particular, for the high quality of her explanatory statement. Looking at this report, we all have to acknowledge a sad fact today. In spite of the many initiatives taken over the years and in spite of the positive action taken by the Commission, the pay gap between the women and men of the European Union remains. Not only do women on average earn 28% less than men for a job of equal value, often their jobs are also more precarious and unpleasant, an issue that is not raised often enough. More women than men are unemployed and more of them are long-term unemployed; finally, most of the time it is they who look after the children and sometimes other dependents too. Of course we have to take action, and in several directions. That is why I agree with the spirit and the proposals in this report: we need to set up a group of experts to improve the collection of statistical data; it is a good idea to launch a major Europe-wide campaign in 2002; and it would no doubt be useful to take that opportunity to publish a comparative report on the various Member States. Similarly, as the rapporteur proposes, we must review the 1975 directive and do something about training, to ensure that women really have the right to lifelong training, encourage the social partners to increase the participation of women in collective bargaining and, finally, take measures to help reconcile working and family life. To ensure, however, that this goes beyond statements of intent, all the political leaders of the Union really must get down to work and clearly state their resolve to do so. Indeed, at a time when we are entering a new world and facing terrible challenges, those who govern us must realise that this situation is not just discriminatory and unjust, it is not just counterproductive; it is a daily contradiction of the values we believe in and the model of society that Europe must uphold.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish sincerely to thank Mr Laschet for a well-written and important report that is politically well balanced and forward-looking. I shall concentrate on four points. The first concerns Amendment No 6 by the Group of the European People’s Party and myself. It has also been supported by the Group of the . The European Parliament ‘[c]onsiders that the elaboration of the common foreign and security policy towards the UN should be characterised by the participation and joint influence of all the European Union’s Member States’. If we have a common foreign and security policy, it cannot be devised solely by the major powers: Germany, France and perhaps also Great Britain. All the Member States must feel they are participating in this area. The smaller Member States must not be confronted by a fait accompli, with a common foreign and security policy having come about because the larger countries have already adopted positions. Otherwise, there is no common foreign and security policy. Regarding paragraph 19, I would, secondly, emphasise the value of depriving countries that systematically infringe human rights of their right to vote in the UN Commission on Human Rights until such breaches cease. This must be pursued in a UN context. The third point I wish to emphasise concerns the UN Security Council. The EU should make better use of the two votes that EU Member States, namely Great Britain and France, now already, in actual fact, possess in the Security Council. We must not therefore weaken the EU’s current 40% representation in the UN Security Council. I should now like to address Mr Patten regarding Amendment No 8, also supported by the Group and the Group. We support Costa Rica’s initiative and the UN General Assembly’s decision to work on a corresponding convention in 2004 on banning human cloning.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is the Stability and Growth Pact that is under discussion, and I believe we have every cause to highlight the fact that we need this Pact for the sake of our future. Those who engage in lawbreaking at European level, by using a ministerial decision to interfere with the Commission’s procedures, have to be told in plain language that breaching this Stability and Growth Pact will end up undermining the stability of the euro, and that will cause the foundation of growth in Europe to crumble. This is where the letter from the six countries with consolidated budgets speaks volumes, and it is my hope and wish that we may recover that awareness with this Pact in mind. What is true of this Pact is true of much else, that if you want to change the law, then find yourself a majority, but you do not change the law by breaking it. Secondly, the process of structural reform that the European Central Bank is demanding ought to happen at national level. There is a particular lack of such reforms in Germany. It speaks volumes when we read, as we currently do, of a fall in the per capita average gross domestic product in Germany, and of Germany being fourth from the bottom. It certainly does not indicate that the Social Democrats are making a good job of running Germany. It would also indicate that the mere fact of Commissioner Verheugen’s membership of that party is enough to disqualify him from being the super-Commissioner here in Brussels. Let me close by pointing out that the Lisbon Process does not mean that a large spending programme means that there is money to burn. On the contrary, savings have to be made at the European level too, and so I have no sympathy for the Commission’s demand for a 50% increase in the Budget. That, too, would overburden the net contributors within the European Union. Several Members of this House could do with a thinking and reflection process, and, overall, I believe that a consolidation phase would do the European Union some good.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly contains some important considerations. It is good to see that the degree and quality of cooperation between the Joint Parliamentary Assembly and the United Nations reached unprecedented levels. I think its is especially worthwhile that enhanced cooperation with the UN is visible in the matter of child soldiers, as is evident from the report. This is an area where the battle cannot be ended before it is completely won. Even one child soldier is a gross injustice to humanity and its future. There are an estimated 300 000 child soldiers under the age of 18 involved in some 40 conflicts throughout the world. Using children as soldiers is a violation of their human rights and deprives them of their childhood and the chance for education and building a better future as a result. Being a soldier always causes serious psychological and often also physical damage in children. The use of child soldiers has increased with, for example, the development of weapons technology, as children can be made to use ever lighter and smaller weapons. The reason for the increase in the use of child soldiers is also due to the nature of modern warfare: most of today’s armed conflicts are civil wars. In the time of the First World War just 10% of the war’s casualties were civilians. Now the corresponding figure is 90%. Civil wars are waged between different ethic groups, which in practice means civilian populations. In this way children become targets and easily recruited additional troops. Children obey orders more readily than adults. Children have had to witness atrocities and carry them out themselves under coercion. Many guerrilla movements even prefer child soldiers to fully-grown combatants. Furthermore, children are prepared to take risks that adults would refuse to. One example is Iran, where children were used as messengers in minefields. The International Save the Children Alliance was heard when the UN Security Council met in mid-January 2003 to discuss the plight of children in armed conflicts. The debate was preceded by the third report by the UN Secretary-General on children and armed conflicts. For the first time in an official report those responsible for using child soldiers were named. This is a significant step forward because it allows international pressure to be put on those who grossly violate children’s rights. This otherwise excellent report is still in need of some small stylistic improvements. The Question Time in Rome was certainly animated, as points 6 and 26 state and which is all too commendable, but as it is actually mentioned twice, one gets the impression that this is an altogether unusual exception to the rule and that the basic nature of our work is lifeless and anaemic.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since the subject of the Italian elections has been raised in this Chamber, I would like to reassure Mr Poettering. I would add that the current function of the plenary sitting certainly does not make it the most appropriate place to go into a question which has been dealt with at length in the Spanish press and has featured in the Italian newspapers, which did, in fact, inform us about the elections. I would point out, moreover, that we can have recourse to bodies, such as the Parliamentary Bureau, and to people with responsibility for such matters, such as the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, the President of the European Parliament and the Secretary-General, who, I am sure, will be able to investigate what happened and discover whether anything out of the ordinary took place. The plenary sitting would not appear to be the most appropriate place to do this. I therefore feel that the best thing would be to place our trust in these bodies and wait for them to analyse the case properly, seeing as I imagine the matter is of interest to all the Members in this Chamber. I wonder whether the procedure used would have been the same for the least important Member of this Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the proposal for the 'Constitutional Treaty' has been produced by the most reactionary circles in the capitalist system. The swaggering of Mr Giscard d’Estaing and those behind him and the rejoicing of the then Greek Presidency and the current Italian Presidency do not suffice to refute the above reality. Those promoting the anti-grass roots policy have the nerve to call by the name of 'constitution' a text which not only fails to crystallise the democratic achievements of the people, but also reduces them to a text which establishes capitalism constitutionally, which redistributes power for the benefit of the strong, which hands over more national sovereignty to the imperialist, Euro-unifying centre and which dangerously extends the militarisation of the European Union. The result does not surprise us. It could not be otherwise, because it could not fail to reflect the nature of the ΕU and its current political situation. That is why the Communist Party of Greece is against the introduction of a European constitution, which strengthens the imperialist ΕU to the detriment of the people and for the benefit of the exploiters. Nor are we surprised at the lack of substantial information on the content of the 'constitution'. Despite the propaganda campaign, the people must not be deceived. They must strengthen their fight to defend and extend their achievements, to demolish the structure being built by the exploiters and to finally change society.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I think that this debate, once again, underlines the fact that we all share the same premise: that it is imperative that we, in the European Union, should have increasingly close relations with Turkey, until the opportunity arises, when the time is right, that it should become a Member State in its own right. But it also underlines another point of view that we should make very clear to the Turkish authorities: that in order for this to take place, Turkey must become a full democracy. I agree with what Mr Lamassoure has said in his report. The Turks have made advances. It is also true, however, that this constitutional reform contains three elements that impair its credibility. First of all, it ceases to class as crimes actions that are still crimes because they fulfil the conditions as such. Secondly, the constitution is being reformed, but other laws remain in force, such as the Penal Code, the anti-terrorism law and the audiovisual law, which continue to uphold the existence of certain crimes of expression, of opinion, of public demonstration and association. Thirdly, and most importantly, the constitutional reform is not being put into practice. Arbitrary detentions and violations of human rights continue to take place. We all receive, as I do myself, constant complaints, of which, today, there have been many, that are continually causing problems for the defenders of human rights and their organisations, not to mention, of course, the situation of the Kurdish people. Yes, the Kurdish people. It is not enough to lift the restriction of using a language if this is upheld in law and there is no recognition of the existence of a Community as a people in their own right. This is the case with the Kurds. This is even more the case, Mr President, where a Sakharov Prize winner, Mrs Leyla Zana, remains in gaol, and we must continue to strongly demand that she be freed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, the Brussels Council has once again shown a politically negative face: two Member States decide for the rest, without taking account of everybody else’s contribution to the common project. This is pitiful, under any circumstances. On the other hand, we have seen a necessary and expected decision: enlargement to the East. As you have said, Mr Prodi, enlargement is the solution and not the problem. But it may give us many headaches if we do not establish adequate levels of funding, since many citizens like myself do not believe that it can be done when we are twenty-five countries with the money we have for fifteen. Particularly in terms of agriculture. Growth, yes, but guaranteeing the basic pillars, real cohesion, real convergence. Ambition, yes, but we must also accept that we need a greater budgetary contribution which reflects, in all respects, the challenge of this enormous political project, since to extract as much as possible from the present budget will not be sufficient.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I abstained on this resolution, and I have two points of particular reservation. The issue of the Euro-bond market is of general concern to all people in Europe; it is not just a London issue. It is certainly one with which we have concerns in Scotland and I was disappointed in the way that vote turned out. Last night, in the debate, I referred to remarks made yesterday by the Secretary-General of NATO. I would like again to draw attention to the fact that he deliberately engaged in party-political debate within the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to Scotland. In doing that, he appears to me to have misrepresented both the position of Ireland as confirmed by Minister Andrews in this morning’s Irish Times and the position of my own party in this argument in the United Kingdom. Senior civil servants of international bodies ought not to engage in that kind of party-political dialogue. On that account, I was very disappointed with the remarks about NATO here.

Political group: Verts-ALE