GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I understand why Commissioner Verheugen feels cheated on the 1999 deal that the Greek Cypriot Government would facilitate a settlement if accession were unconditional. My own view in 1999 that accession was not feasible without unification. We should have kept both sides guessing in order to keep up the pressure. I was criticised for that view and accused of bias. However, it looks as if communication with Turkish Cypriots – convincing them that Europe is friendly and welcoming – has paid off. That kind of effort has also been undertaken by the European Commission in the face of legalistic objections. The EU institutions have perhaps let down the Greek Cypriots by failing sufficiently to challenge their version of history or to encourage them to realise that a compromise would be necessary – not a return to the pre-1974 situation. This House bears some of that responsibility. Mr Poos calls on Cypriots to leave nationalism at the door. I welcome that call. I just wish it had been made consistently on both communities over the last five years. If indeed the north votes 'yes' and the south 'no', the status quo cannot endure and a new assessment will be needed. Ways will have to be found to bring Turkish Cypriots out of their political and economic isolation. For instance, we must drop the requirement for Cypriots to have Greek mother tongue in order to be officials in the EU institutions. There must be a European Parliament delegation to Northern Cyprus. I am getting ahead of myself. I still hope very much that Greek Cypriots, as well as Turkish Cypriots, will vote 'yes' on Saturday. The World Bank predicts a huge growth spurt of 5% per annum if they do so.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is much in the text to promote access to buses by disabled people – passenger handrails, non-slip surfaces, standards for wheelchairs and a wide definition of reduced mobility to include all disabled people. However, the key to tonight's debate is Amendment No 8: a guarantee of level access to all new buses in urban areas for persons with reduced mobility. To achieve this requires a boarding aid, a lift or a ramp, because a low-floor bus on its own is not enough. Our failure to agree this crucial part of the text would leave disabled people quite literally falling through the crack, a crack for which we would ourselves be responsible. The rapporteur – to whom I offer my heartfelt thanks – has forged a compromise which seeks to share responsibility for access between bus manufacturers, operators, local planning and transport authorities. But as we negotiate the final outcome I say to Parliament and the Commission that even a raised kerb at every bus stop can never be the full access solution. Bad parking or obstacles on the pavement can still prevent boarding, whilst a simple manual swing-over ramp, built into the floor of each new bus, is cheap and will work time after time. Yet nine years after this directive was first discussed, when the disability movement for a generation has put accessible public transport at the heart of its demands, those on the opposite side of the House threaten to vote, not simply against the amendment, but to destroy the whole directive. Do they do so on grounds of cost? No. The study of accessible buses commissioned by my own government shows low operating costs outweighing the marginal extra capital costs, while a 14% increase in passengers brought in extra revenue. Do they do so because of objections from manufacturers? No. A check today, again in my own Member State, shows that British bus manufacturers and British bus operators are unanimous in their view that they want the directive to go through. Do they do so because of a genuine difficulty at all? No. Because the parliamentary committee that scrutinised these proposals in detail voted for them unanimously. Mr President, my only conclusion, as we have heard tonight, is that those who oppose do so because they share the prejudice that disability access is an unnecessary technical detail. They are wrong. For a disabled person it means the freedom to travel or the restriction to stay at home. Tonight we have the chance to grant that freedom to vote for accessible public transport. We must and we will.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you very much for this reply, which is genuinely useful, and in view of it I do not know what action we can take to urge the Minster for Defence in Spain to deal with certain serious cases of rape and sexual assault, such as that of soldier Quiñoa in the army. Because a year ago now the Minister promised in the Spanish Parliament to fulfil certain commitments to speed up these cases, but has not done so. There is a serious legal vacuum, however, because these sexual assaults are dealt with within military jurisdiction as abuses of authority and not as violations of human rights, which is what they are. Commissioner, what measures could we take to encourage the application of this directive? I would very much like some measure to be taken in this regard. Perhaps a letter addressed to you which could be communicated to the Spanish Minister for Defence so that he may deal with this case of soldier Quiñoa could have an effect, because for more than two years the victim has had no posting, relegated within the armed forces, while her rapist, lieutenant Iván Moriano, is in the army, he is a persistent offender, and no measures have been taken. This is a serious case of sexual assault within the army which is yet to be dealt with. It is also a European issue, Commissioner, because I have investigated and there are other cases throughout Europe. Therefore, if you will allow me, I would address a letter to the Commissioner which explains this issue, Mr President, and which you could communicate to the Minister for Defence, Mr Trillo, who should deal with this serious problem.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, despite having some serious concerns, I voted in favour of the financial aid package because I see in it an opportunity to establish a market economy, democracy and peace using financial incentives, of the kind put forward by Mr Karas, rather than force. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those fellow MEPs who gave me their support in this and would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and Happy New Year! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, could you explain procedurally what happened to paragraph 3?

Political group: PPE-DE
-DE, and the s and Social Democrats in the . There is no need for us to have this debate today. My group is in favour of equal conditions for all Members in a Members' Statute but this motion makes it harder and more difficult for us to achieve such a statute. If the motion proposed by Mr Barón Crespo and Mr Poettering is adopted, it will block progress in our discussions with the Council. Those two gentlemen gave you a mandate for exploratory discussions with Council and yet their parties now want to force a vote on Mr Rothley's opinion before giving Parliament the chance to consider the outcome of your discussions. Mr Rothley's opinion wants to include in the Members' Statute issues of primary law such as immunities and privileges which require ratification by national parliaments. The message about reform that they are sending to the Council is ‘take it or leave it’. The message that they are sending to MEPs who want reform is ‘forget it’. My party's joint resolution with the Groups calls for a common statute, agreed with national governments in the Council, giving equality of treatment to MEPs and transparency in our allowances. Our question to individual members of the and the , many of whom will be laughing all the way to the bank if they stop reform, is this: have you no self-respect? Have you no concern for the reputation of this House? I am accused in Mr Rothley's press release of being unserious, of making dishonest accusations. Mr Rothley, I take seriously the accusations of dishonesty made by citizens against us. Mr Barón Crespo accuses me of heaping invective on the s. If I am heaping invective on you, Mr Barón Crespo, why are so many of your members, including all of your British members, going to support our motion in the vote tomorrow? The answer is that you heap invective on yourselves and you deserve it. Moreover, you heap invective on those of us who recognise the public concern, who admit that the expenses regime is unjustifiable and who seek to introduce the highest standards into the management of this House. Mr President, we abuse the taxpayer at our peril and we demean democratic politics through not reforming. In calling on Members to support the resolution put forward by three groups, I call on them to reject the description of politicians put forward in the words of the poet, Hilaire Belloc, when he wrote: ‘With pomp and ridiculous display, The Politician's cor was borne away, While those around him carped and slanged, I wept: I would have seen him hanged.’ (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was extremely shocked at the fact that the behaviour of the police in The Hague was likened to that in a police state, only because they insisted on the placards that were being carried during a demonstration being intelligible to the public for whom the demonstration was intended. This is extremely odd. It is, in the first place, all very well for people to travel to The Hague especially to demonstrate in favour of a totalitarian dictator, but then, on top of that, they refuse to write the placards in a language that is intelligible to Dutch people. What is the reason for that? It is very obvious. If they are written in a non-intelligible language, they may contain all kinds of racist messages. If they are accepted after all, then the next thing is, the newspapers carry photographs that give the impression that the Dutch police is standing by while these awful things are being written. It is therefore entirely logical that a request is made beforehand to draft the messages in an intelligible language so that the Dutch police can ensure that the placards themselves do not infringe the law. If that is seen to be a police state, then that is taking matters very far indeed and is clearly indicative of what those who are behind Milosevic think a police state is like.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today’s debate on the second reading of the sweeteners directive typifies a development that I regard with increasing disquiet and grave concern. The Commission justifies change in terms of the state of the art in technology and science. I too am in favour of scientific progress, but not everything that appears to be an improvement is actually in the consumer’s best interests. I ask myself what will be the end result when the food industry produces food by refining, to a high level, animal and vegetable raw materials and by the use of thousands of synthetic flavourings, and is able to take these processes almost to extremes. Our daily food intake is being taken over by pharmacists, chemists and genetic engineers. Whilst I cannot and will not put up with this situation, it is evident that someone is making money out of it, and it is for precisely that reason, and in the interests of public health, that it is an absolute necessity that food directives should rest on a scientific basis. The assessment of risks is, however, being made ever more complex and problematic by increases in the depth of processing and in the diversity of the procedures and additives used, while, at the same time, legislation becomes out of date more quickly. Turning specifically to the subject of the recommendation adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, there are two comments I would like to make. I endorse Amendment No 1a to the effect that all sweeteners should be re-evaluated within as short a time as possible before the directive enters into force. My reasoning is that I believe that the warning by sceptical scientists associating aspartame with tumours cannot simply be dismissed, the all-clear sounded by the official scientific committee on food notwithstanding. Whilst I have every confidence in the choices scientists make, I do take the view that the specifics of threshold values have to be handled with care and on a methodologically justified basis. I endorse Amendment No 3 because setting a definite deadline for the distribution of stocks of products that are no longer permitted can prevent these products from being got over the counter quickly.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the two reports by Mr Moreira da Silva under discussion will be important while the Community prepares for the meeting next June of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Their aim is that the EU will play a leading role in the international struggle to slow down climatic change. I believe that Mr Moreira da Silva’s work has furthered this aim. According to an estimate made by the European Environment Agency, greenhouse gas emissions in the EU are expected to increase by 6% during the period 1990 – 2010. It also states in its appraisal that it is emissions from traffic that are clearly increasing most of all. Urban traffic in particular is the main focus for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from traffic. For that reason the committee is encouraging the Commission to make proposals in its new Green Paper to alter attitudes to transportation in densely built-up areas so that greenhouse gas emissions may be permanently reduced. The committee also considers it necessary to increase financial support for public transport and it criticised the Commission for the fact that policy and action in the EU strategy on a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions are of secondary importance. This is unacceptable if the EU really intends to lead the world in the process to slow down climatic change. The EU’s own input is vital, especially as the outcome of the sixth conference of the parties to the agreement cannot yet be certain. Mr President, now I would like to put things very simply. I feel that we politicians still have not grasped how serious the situation is with regard to climatic change. As politicians, we are used to making compromises with regard to almost anything, and we have learnt that the world is shaped that way – shaped for compromise. But now we have before us a party we cannot negotiate with. Nature is a hard fact of life: it does not submit to agreement; it just is. This is such a simple fact that I almost feel ashamed to mention it, but I believe this is the main source of confusion in the way we think.

Political group: PPE-DE
Tourism is now already an important economic sector in Europe and also has very high potential for development over the next few years. The Commission’s statement contains quite a few sound proposals as to how employment and the dynamism of the sector can be promoted further. An open coordination method and a strengthened role for the advisory tourist committee would be important factors in this connection. We also welcome the fact that tourism is to be made sustainable in the long term through a European Agenda 21 for tourism. We believe, however, that the current report does not accord sufficient respect to the subsidiarity principle. Setting up a European framework programme for tourism would place a further burden on the EU budget, which is already overstretched. Nor is it possible to give tourism policy it own legal basis in the Treaties. Even if there is a need for coordination, tourism can be dealt with at national and regional levels, for example when it comes to marketing. The report also appears to lack confidence in the sector’s own capacity for development.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank Mr Sturdy for the good cooperation, which has enabled us to reach important compromises on a number of crucial points. Much as I welcome harmonised, simpler and more uniform legislation in the field of pesticide residues, it would be even better if we could seize the opportunity to increase consumer protection. Half of our fresh food contains pesticide residues, and there are increasingly more cases of various residues – up to 14 no less – in one product. That is why, when MRLs are laid down, more account is taken of vulnerable groups by introducing additional safety factors and by introducing aggregated parameters for additives or synergetic effects. In this connection, we have asked that MRLs be stipulated on the basis of best agricultural practices, particularly integrated agricultural methods involving the lowest possible dosage and spray frequencies. Not only should MRLs be laid down in a different way, but also more and better residue research should be carried out. Financial penalties when MRLs are exceeded should make their enforcement more effective. Finally, I think that consumers are entitled to information about ingredients, and so they are entitled to know to how many pesticide residues they are exposed. Measures of this kind contribute to healthier food of a higher quality for everyone.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, international HGV traffic is characterised by sharply contrasting interests. If some companies had their way, it would be possible to drive without any time restrictions, during the day, at night, during weekends and on bank holidays. This type of driving would benefit this industry which, in permanent competition with the railways and internal shipping, tries to be the fastest and the cheapest. HGV drivers who are employees are pleased about driving-time restrictions, which aim to protect their own health, but not about compulsory waiting at uncomfortable locations. Self-employed drivers, who are often former employees who, under pressure from their managers, have had to take over the business risk, want to drive without any time restrictions in order to be able to keep their heads above water financially. If, on the other hand, it were up to the residents in the vicinity of through roads, HGV traffic in Europe would be kept to an absolute minimum, and it would certainly not pass through built-up areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty, mountain valleys and mountain passes. Local authorities welcome HGV traffic only to the private industrial sites, because these generate employment and income, and not through traffic, which only generates inconvenience. There is now a plethora of measures by means of which local authorities and regions protect the environment and their Sunday rest, and try to level out dangerous peaks in traffic. For a large majority of people, it is important for this freedom to be retained without facing unnecessary barriers to cross borders. Mr Savary’s proposals make the bans on TEN routes predictable. However, I would prefer to see the fast transport of perishable agricultural products, to which he gives due consideration, transferred to the railways, and for that reason, I do not endorse his proposal for a derogation. For the rest, I believe that he has struck the right balance between the different conflicting interests.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as an Austrian who comes from a country with many border regions, a significant rural sector and mountainous areas, I welcome the reports that have been tabled. I would like to comment on three areas. Firstly, Europe is a Community of peace. This presupposes that we have a transparent, efficient democracy that is close to the people, that we respect freedom and accept responsibility, practise non-discrimination and show solidarity. It is solidarity that we are talking about today. For me, solidarity is not a question of charity, but of distribution and holistic thinking. Neither is solidarity limited to the nation state. If we want to make the internal market into a domestic market then we must not renationalise the Cohesion Fund. My second point is that if you look at the Constitutional Treaty our vision has won through, because now it is actually a question of negotiating our statement of beliefs. The policy areas mentioned are only the means of achieving those objectives. I should like to quote Article 3 just briefly: 'The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, [that is] highly competitive ... It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection ... It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’ Two of our fundamental values in Article 2 are solidarity and non-discrimination. And in doing so it is all about putting definite measures in place to achieve the European Union's objective. My final and third point is that I would also ask the Commission to take into account the areas that we have mentioned today when it is drafting a framework regulation on services of general economic interest.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you said the trade unions have been consulted. I would like to know whether all workers have been consulted. After all, we are not going to lose our jobs as MEPs if we do not turn up but some of the workers might. Can I also have assurances that the trade unions have not been pressurised? I know that pressure has been put on them in the past about this building, so I would like to seek those assurances on behalf of the trade unions and the other workers.

Political group: ELDR