GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is common knowledge that, at regional level in the European Union, there is a close connection between low per capita income, high unemployment and distance from mainland Europe or geographical remoteness, which is currently a serious problem, but which has existed since the industrial revolution of the 19th century, due to underdeveloped communications. This is a vicious circle, which can only be broken by a political and economic joint action which addresses all the issues that are causing this underdevelopment. The trans-European networks policy is not, however, being implemented in such a way as to resolve this crucial issue, despite the fact that it was introduced with the specific aim of establishing direct links between remote countries and the Union’s central regions. The basic aim of the specific projects and budgets of the trans-European networks, as well as those financed by the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which resulted from a policy that was greatly desired by the Member States, yet poorly accepted and supported by the Commission, was to establish direct links between those regions that have a higher per capita income. In doing so, they rode roughshod over the regulations currently in force, with the damaging consequences with which we are all familiar. The debate on the report by Mr Hatzidakis, whom I congratulate, provides us with a good opportunity to get to grips with the political dimension of the current situation and to try to find a solution to it, in line with the decisive reform of the trans-European networks policy which is due to be implemented in the 2000-2006 period. It is therefore the intention of our political group, as the amendments that have been presented have highlighted, to ensure that the networks are compatible with sustainable development and that the reform corresponds to the objective of uniting the whole Community by prioritising the remote regions, which have hitherto been neglected. Finally, it is our intention to upgrade the railways and to bring about the decentralisation of the networks, particularly with regard to airports and ports. The concentration of road, airport and port networks is causing serious congestion and environmental problems which we must prevent. I hope that we will be able to bring about the changes that the European Union needs in order to achieve the regional balance and social cohesion that we are advocating. We must be aware that, at this precise moment, Regional Development Plans are being approved for the period 2000-2006 which will contribute to isolating even further the Objective 1 regions, which desperately need a modern connection to the whole of Europe, including high speed rail links. Amongst these regions are my own country, Galicia, and the entire north-western Iberian Peninsula, covering both Spain and Portugal, an Atlantic region which is crucial to the whole of Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, many things have already been said and, in the minute at my disposal, I will not even be able to cover the most important aspects. I believe that there is no doubt as to the need to adopt a statute, even from the point of view of the role and legitimacy of this Parliament. Furthermore, everyone in my group, in particular Mr Rothley and Mr Barón Crespo and the Italian delegation, have always declared themselves in favour of the Statute and have always supported the need for it, voting for it with conviction last June. I believe, however, that we should not delude ourselves, Mr President. What we are, in fact, discussing today – and, if it is necessary, let us do so – is not the Statute, but the adjustments of salaries. I think that it is rather humiliating for Parliament, but that is all we are discussing. Let us call a spade a spade. If it is the only thing we can do – and this is the Council’s responsibility – let us do it; but we must not call it a statute, because this is not a statute.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish first of all to pay tribute to the work carried out by Mr Brok. This report makes many points and puts forward a vision of Europe’s role in international relations that we basically share. We also agree with its confirmation of multilateralism and the ranking of Europe’s priorities in foreign policy and even with the positions it adopts on the Middle East. If we had the time, I could give you many further examples. There is one point, however, that I do wish to address, which is the issue of parliament’s rights in the field of foreign policy. Like you, I believe that the European Parliament should be better informed. This is stipulated in a recent agreement between the Council, the Commission and our House and it must be fully implemented. I do have some reservations, however, about the report’s more extreme demands. History has often shown that an effective foreign policy does not sit well with extended parliamentary powers. An assembly is a place of debate and discussion and, if necessary, of decision-making. Parliamentary time essentially extends over a long period whereas foreign policy must be conducted on a daily basis. Incidentally, Parliament is also, sometimes, a place of conflict between groups of necessarily differing opinions. I believe, however, that in terms of conducting its external policy, any community would benefit from demonstrating as much unity as possible. We also note that, in all democratic countries, the role of national parliaments in foreign policy follows particular rules. My last comment is that enhancing parliamentary rights would not make Europe's foreign policy more comprehensible. Let us not produce some tangled web of additional competences that would further complicate the European public’s understanding of our actions. I shall conclude by saying that, as regards the CFSP, I do not believe it would be a good idea to call for equal rights with the other EU institutions. Let us ask questions, let us make recommendations, if necessary, but let us not go so far as to call for the power to deliver opinions on matters of external policy. For the CFSP, as for other matters, furthermore, let us rely on the judicious recommendations of the Convention.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, just hours after the Evian G8 meeting, which a growing number of citizens see as illegitimate, I feel it is essential to come up with answers to a number of questions, before attempting to consider the nature of the transatlantic partnership. As I do not have a great deal of time, I will only touch on some of these questions. First, there is the question of Iraq. Can we really say that the issue of the war has been dealt with when the European Union has given its blessing to the United States having complete control of Iraq? Should we engage in a war against terrorism instigated by the bellicose stance of the United States that seeks to dominate, not to share power? This is just increasing the threat. Should we then allow ourselves to be engulfed in a genuine currency war, started this time by the United States? Should we give in to President Bush’s decrees yet again by setting aside what remains of the European social model? Should we set aside the provisions on retirement, for example, in the face of wholesale opposition as exemplified by the large demonstrations in France and Austria? Lastly, what use will the meeting of the WTO in Cancun be if the European Union does not stand up to the United States’ continuing failure to move on certain issues, especially that of allowing poor countries to access generic medicines? The European Union is at a crossroads. It may choose to hide behind the strategic doctrine entitled ‘for a new American century’. Alternatively it may choose to adopt a truly independent policy. If we choose the latter, how can we achieve such a policy without addressing the huge expectations of the southern hemisphere and without freeing ourselves from the ultraliberal policy that exacerbates inequalities and frustrates all attempts to promote development? We must listen to the people of Europe. They do not want Europe to be a poor relation of the United States. They do not want Europe to be overcautious. They are hoping and praying for an independent and responsible Europe. They long for a Europe that promotes the interests of all in working for a world that is safer because it is more humane.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, allow me to say straight away that although I represent a minority position, I am very proud of it. I have the ‘Automatiseringsgids’ of a famous Dutch newspaper, in front of me. On behalf of all my fellow MEPs who want to learn from technology neutrality, it might be useful to read out a few quotes from it. NTT DoCoMo earmarks USD 8.2 million to control unsolicited e-mails on mobile phones. The e-mail addresses of NTT DoCoMo mobile phones are based on the phones’ telephone numbers. That enables all kinds of advertising agencies and dating agencies to advertise their services by sending messages to randomly generated numbers. The article also states that in Japan, the receiver of the text message contributes towards the cost of sending it. This might be food for thought for all those people who claim that the proposal of Amendment No 35 by Mr Cappato is technology-neutral. It clearly is not, for as soon as one is faced with UMTS, the difference between e-mail and SMS fades into the background, with all the consequences that this entails. That is why it is much preferable to talk about electronic communications, as is done in Amendment No 44. That is, in fact, the final step which rapporteur Cappato should have taken in order to put an excellent proposal before us. Let us be very aware that citizens are not all computer-illiterate. Despite this, they are saddled with most problems. If we were to adopt the proposal of Amendment No 35 by Mr Cappato to change e-mail services of this kind, the entire computer system would need to be changed. Indeed, we would then need to change over from the POP 3 system, which nearly everyone in Europe has, to the e-map system which is offered by only one American provider. However, if that were the case, the Commissioner would immediately receive a complaint about the lack of competition in Europe. That is another reason why I believe it should not be done. I therefore propose approving the Cappato report but also improving on it further by voting in favour of Amendment No 44 instead of Amendment No 35.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome Commissioner Barnier and the Portuguese Presidency here this afternoon. On 14 February, we will see the launch of the IGC which is to be completed by the end of 2000. This is a big task but it can be done. I think it is generally agreed here this afternoon across all groups that the Helsinki agenda will not be sufficient to cover the necessary reform to prepare Europe for enlargement. In other words we need to go further than what has been referred to as the important “Amsterdam leftovers”. These include the extension of qualified voting – in my country we accept that but not to areas of taxation – the re-weighting of voting in Council to favour larger states and the number of Commissioners in an enlarged Europe. In relation to the latter point, Ireland wants to maintain the right to nominate a full and equal Member of the Commission irrespective of the number of Member States joining. We are prepared to consider re-weighting the votes in the Council of Ministers, provided that the larger Member States are willing to agree to every Member State having a full and equal Member of the Commission. I feel I speak for many smaller countries when I make that particular point. At the IGC, we would also need a debate on the possible divisions of the Treaties into two – into a policy area and an area on the Constitution. We would accept the division of the Treaties providing it would not limit the control the smaller Member States had in the re-negotiation of the whole policy area of the Treaty. In other words, if we are not represented fully in the Commission we will not have an input into policy discussions. So we are watching that entire point extremely carefully. We look forward to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to seeing its contents. The Treaty of Amsterdam, Mr President, has set the number of European Parliament Members at 700 and a debate is needed in this Parliament on how that number will be distributed among the enlarged Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, none of us, in fact, have the words to express the feelings aroused by the terrorist attack of unprecedented barbarity with which the United States has just been hit. The American people is going to have to live through a deeply traumatic experience which is likely to become still more intense as the scale of the disaster they have just experienced becomes more apparent. In this unimaginable ordeal, they must be able to count upon our unqualified solidarity. I would add that, if these faceless monsters targeted the United States yesterday, they will be able, tomorrow, to bring terror and death to any region of the world, including, of course, the European continent. Madam President, my group therefore fully supports the declarations you have made and the steps you have taken on our behalf. These dismaying attacks constitute a challenge to the whole of the human community, a challenge we are now going to have to learn to take up. I say ‘learn’ because, if we all agree that the guilty parties must be found and punished, we are obliged to acknowledge that, where every other aspect of the matter is concerned, more questions than certainties arise out of the tragedy of 11 September 2001. In my view, nothing would be more inappropriate, indeed more dangerous, than to react to this radically new phenomenon with well-worn notions whose limitations have just been cruelly demonstrated. After an outrage of this kind, there may, in other words, be a great temptation to call fervently for violent retaliation which would, however, have immeasurable consequences. What is more, you are right, Mr Poettering. It would do no service to the cause of peace to allow criminal fanatics to be confused with entire peoples, a number of whose representatives have, sometimes with much dignity and in a deep spirit of responsibility, indeed just expressed both their radical condemnation of the terrorists and their solidarity with the American people. Finally, and in more general terms, no one must forget ever again that we are all part of the same world. Even the strongest nation of all is not invulnerable. The entire international community is sentenced to confronting together the great problems facing the planet – the oceans of frustration, the great divisions that are opening up and the negotiations that have broken down – and to cooperating as closely as possible in the search for long-term solutions. That is undoubtedly the decisive contribution that Europe can make to the world in order to join in taking up the challenge to civilisation facing us. (Loud applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, structuring a united and mutually supportive European Research Area is part of building European citizenship and this is the subject of the structured dialogue between science and society that is proposed in this programme. A dream that I simply want to tack on to this specific programme? Perhaps. But above and beyond the dream, in a tangible and precise way, we Members of the European Parliament are thus affirming the existence of Europe with all the strength of the creative intelligence that it holds in reserve, whether in its industry, in its universities or in its researchers, and thanks in particular to their mobility. It would be inconceivable for us to maintain the obstacle course that researchers have to negotiate on a day-to-day basis so as to gain the space to be able to devote themselves to their actual work, faced with rules and regulations, the minefield that is social security and the administrative mazes for obtaining visas and resolving career problems. That is why we have a very clear affirmation in these programmes that a vital prerequisite for their successful implementation is mobility: mobility that crosses natural, cultural and economic boundaries, that champions gender equality and that will enable the exchange of research practices. Perhaps the DG responsible will have to launch a mobility support service very soon: today it is just a freephone number, tomorrow it will be a crossroads towards a Europe on the move. We should add that upstream it is necessary to develop interdisciplinary doctoral courses that will open up a new concept of the mental, technical and scientific plain on which research is conducted, a concept which meets the expectations and needs of the public. For the universities it is a strategic challenge to encourage both teaching and research staff to open their minds to this possibility. Promoting new skills and new attitudes that we need to adopt to place ourselves in the vanguard of research while taking into account the European dimension; taking stock of this potential, of these reservoirs of grey matter, networking them, creating the prolific alchemy of the European Research Area; is this a dream? No. Because, building the European Research Area is to rely on the strength and potential of our researchers, on the reservoirs of talent in our universities and schools, on mobility, which opens the way for the exchange of knowledge and expertise, and thus create a powerful catalyst that will make it possible for Europe to exist, to embody the very substance of the European Research Area of this millennium, with the people of Europe, for the people of the world. Thank you to those who gave us this vision.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to take advantage of the fact that certain members of the Council of Ministers are present. The Council was not represented during the debate yesterday although its presence had been requested. Would they please clarify the contents of the decisions taken yesterday or indeed the day before yesterday? These were of course taken before the European Parliament could give an opinion on the report now before us on the labelling of beef. According to my sources, the Council has decided to postpone the application of compulsory labelling for one year, whereas we believe this postponement should only be for a matter of months. It has also decided not to work on this issue with the European Parliament through the codecision procedure. As the Council is now present, I should like an explanation because it is clear that this vote does not make much sense now. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, that remains the case. I understand why Members from other countries are displeased. Let me say as a German that I think what has happened in Germany is a scandal, and our farmers are the ones who are suffering from it. Mrs Künast, our Minister for Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture, has done nothing except make announcements at the top of her voice. Functioning channels of communication need to be created, and very soon. This has not been achieved. At the time of the Lannoye report, our group wanted mandatory reporting by the authorities to start at an earlier date. We asked for 2003, and 2005 was what we got. What I want to ask the Commissioner is this: what do you think about that in the aftermath of this scandal? Should we not, after all, impose this obligation on the authorities earlier?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should just like to say that my group agrees to your proposal to vote on the original report paragraph by paragraph. The report is good enough, almost perfect to begin with; these amendments have been tabled for the plenary. I should just like to explain to the House, to anyone who may not have been paying attention, that it is true that 200 amendments come from the Group of the European People’s Party and another 200 from other groups, but altogether 350 amendments come from Forza Italia and Alleanza Nazionale. It is obvious, therefore, that they all come from Mr Berlusconi’s friends. We therefore agree to your proposal, Mr President, and will vote accordingly.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I want to address two points here. One is the question of equal pay and the other is the question of youth employment. Statistics show that, despite the adoption of anti-discrimination legislation in Europe, nationally and at European level, the gender gap in pay continues to be something like 17% between men and women. In Ireland it is now 20%, having risen from 18% in 1997. There is still clearly a problem there and if we are serious about addressing a 60% participation of women in the labour market, we have to address the question of equal pay in the review that is being carried out by the Commission. I believe that such an approach will encourage voluntary participation by women in the labour market and will hopefully close the gender gap as well. On the question of youth employment – there are hundred of thousands of young people right across Europe who are excluded from the labour market for all kinds of reasons. If we are serious about breaking the cycle of poverty in Europe, then we have to address this issue. We have to do this through action programmes and targets and in a way which engages with them on a one-to-one basis in a multi-disciplinary way to actually break the cycle of exclusion. Otherwise they will continue to face a lifetime of exclusion and poverty.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the economic unification of Europe is a great adventure, but fortunately we have fifteen Ministers of Finance who keep a close watch on each other in Ecofin. Although we cannot be absolutely sure of that, of course, since meetings are held behind closed doors and sometimes also behind a smokescreen. Only very exceptionally, when things are really getting out of hand in one country, does Ecofin open its doors, does the smokescreen lift and does the colleague concerned get a public reprimand. This week, Ireland became the first country to suffer this fate. Are things going so badly with the Irish economy then? Can we really not trust the Irish? Not at all. On the contrary, Ireland is doing well, as has already been mentioned by many speakers. For five years Ireland has enjoyed an average growth of 5%, with unemployment down from over 16% to scarcely 4% and a budget surplus of over 4.5%. Admittedly there is a threat of the economy overheating and there is a risk of inflation, and that was not within the framework of the agreements made by the ministers themselves. But all in all it is not strange that the Irish should feel harshly treated. However, much greater risks lie in wait. The possible next Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, has announced that he wishes to lower taxation despite a budget deficit and despite a ratio of public debt and gross national product that is more than three times the size of Ireland’s. What we wonder is whether the Council of Ministers will administer a public reprimand here too. Commissioner Solbes Mira, though we have doubts about the necessity of taking Ireland to task, in the latter case you can count on our support.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I do not know whether our actions over the last two days will be successful. Some members of the government told us that they were going to take measures and, that in fact, an agreement between the position of the hunger strikers and that of the government is now quite clearly achievable. That is why we asked the Turkish government to take action. If we are unable to discuss this matter today, I would like us to make a public statement to the effect that we shall discuss this issue with the Council at the May part-session and that we want to see some results in May. The positions in Turkey are clearly evident today. We can find a solution in two days. We shall see what happens over the next two or three days and, in May, all of us in this House shall shoulder our responsibilities.

Political group: Verts-ALE