GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
As always, European integration is proceeding by a series of tests and necessary measures. The essential test which it has inflicted upon itself for the next few years, and which is also a historical imperative, is, of course, the task of opting to reconcile the geography of the continent with its history, and to carry on with the enlargement which will now enable democratisation and considerable economic reforms to take place in the Central and Eastern European Countries. The Treaty of Nice, which the Méndez de Vigo report tackles and comments on with great honesty and rigour, is first of all a substantial political choice by a Europe which is finally reunited on the question of its founding values of democracy, freedom, solidarity and culture. This is a considerable political ambition for our future, which on its own would justify the ratification of the Treaty of Nice, though it has to be admitted that the Treaty has not provided us with the institutional reforms to enable us to exercise, democratically and consistently, a European political power which is held by at least twenty-seven countries. The difficulty in reaching agreement at Nice, even among fifteen countries, on the future institutions of the Union, is proof, if proof were needed, of the limitations of the inter-governmental approach in a Union consisting of an even greater number of Member States. This is why I welcome the fact that our rapporteur is proposing to create a convention, based on the convention which drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in order to make preliminary plans for and to propose to a future IGC a Constitution for the Europe of the future. This step, let us not deny it, will constitute a historic moment in European integration, and its task will be to link our peoples and their future in a way which will be irreversible. This is why a democratic and public debate, a debate which is open to all our peoples, must precede this pre-constitutional stage, so as to remove any ambiguities about the kind of Europe that we want to build together. Is it to be a political Europe or a business Europe? Is it to be a powerful Europe or a club of countries paralysed by the rule of consensus? The public debate decided on at Nice, and the convention method which we have just affirmed here, are the conditions for this imperative, which is to render more democratic the debate on Europe and what is at stake in Europe.

Political group: PSE
I have voted against the resolution (which was nonetheless adopted by 346 votes in favour, 106 votes against and 58 abstentions), for, on crucial points, it does not meet what is required by central features of the Swedish ’ values and our work to protect the rights of small countries in the EU. We wish to see a reference to Europe’s Judaeo-Christian and Biblical inheritance in the Preamble to a future European Constitution. I therefore welcomed Amendment No 7, involving support for the Presidency’s efforts to have Europe’s Judaeo-Christian inheritance incorporated. This was rejected by plenary (with 213 votes in favour, 293 against and 17 abstentions). I also supported Amendment No 8, which put forward demands for a Commission constituted on the basis of equality, with a Commissioner with full voting rights for each Member State. Parliament voted against this, however (by 349 votes in favour, with 147 against and 49 abstentions). Instead, paragraph 8 now states, mistakenly, that the Commission would be in danger of acquiring an intergovernmental character if a Commissioner were appointed for each Member State. Nor do we support paragraph 5 in which Parliament adopts a position on the proposal for a passerelle clause in the intended European Constitution. The clause would entitle the European Council to give itself and the EU increased powers, as well as to change the voting rules in favour of a qualified majority rather than unanimity, without the approval of the Member States’ national parliaments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a debate analysing three reports on consumer issues together is a rare, precious occasion after years of lukewarm interest from Parliament and the Commission in this area. The first report is, as we have heard, on the Green Paper on European Union Consumer Protection, the second on the consumer policy strategy for 2002 to 2006, and the third, a very weighty tome, on the legal protection of the consumer. The strategy proposed by the Commission lays down these three medium-term objectives, which are to be achieved through a programme implemented immediately and to be subject to periodic checks carried out by the Commission and recorded in documents certifying progress made. Achieving a common level of consumer protection means harmonising not just the safety of goods and services but, first and foremost, the different legal procedures through which the consumers exercise their role as guarantors in commercial transactions on the internal market. If consumer policy is to be genuinely implemented, consumers must be accorded the same importance as an identical guarantee covering the whole of the Union’s territory. The programme also provides for a plan of priority actions through which consumers can decide with the Member States on monitoring and, where necessary, appeal procedures, thanks to a system of genuine administrative cooperation. Consumers and their various networks must have the capacity and the necessary resources to promote their actions on an unrestricted level playing-field within the internal market, and to do so in all areas, in respect of companies and the various production organisations. The principle of minimum harmonisation of consumer protection policy is enshrined in the Treaty, moreover. It is now important that there is a more effective, comprehensive policy to win support for minimum harmonisation across the board. To this end, we need new rules which are endorsed and, above all, which supersede the previous rules.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for creating the right framework for the future of Basle II. However, at the same time I would like to ask Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin what they are doing under their portfolios to ensure that Basle II is implemented without damaging the economy. Basle II is about the creditworthiness of companies, of small and medium-sized enterprises, and about the guarantees and transparency this requires. I believe that if we do not take precautions in good time here, we will end up with a huge problem involving ever more bankruptcies and enormous unemployment. I would like to address my second question to Commissioner Lamy. Mr Prodi mentioned that we want to drive forward the political democratisation of the WTO. To what extent has provision been made in the Commission's work programme for making progress with the parliamentary assembly?

Political group: PPE-DE
This report, without commenting on content – the advantages for consumers of the ionisation process, which it does not contest – highlights a number of dangers and instances of abuse in this field. We are only voting for this report because it advocates prudence, which we consider beneficial to consumers. The real problem does not arise from the ionisation process itself as much as from the use to which it is put. Although it can already be applied to the benefit of producers and consumers (conservation of foods, eradication of parasites, etc.), the agri-food and mass marketing sectors, concerned solely with increasing their profits, can turn the process against users. The report illustrates this danger: the consumer is not warned by adequate labelling that the product, despite its appearance achieved through ionisation, will nevertheless deteriorate, and this has already led to food poisoning (cases of fatal exposure of workers to ionising products have been reported in some companies). Once again, where an innovative process could lead to progress for the people, the irresponsibility induced by market pressures is dangerous as operators disregard human life and health in the pursuit of capitalist profit.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, I have risen before on a vote on reports like these and no doubt I will be doing so again in the future. I would normally rise before each report, but if you are agreeable, I shall make this statement once and we could accept it for all three reports in the culture package. Rule 63a of our Rules of Procedure states that we have to ensure that all reports are financially compatible. To make sure that we are in line with that Rule, I would propose that we add an oral amendment to all three reports which would read 'Considers that the financial statement as amended is compatible with the ceiling of headings 3 and 5 of the financial perspectives 2000-2006'. (The President established there were no objections to the oral amendment, and that it would also apply to the Pack and Iivari reports) Report (A5-0358/2003) by Christa Prets, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a Community action programme to promote bodies active at European level in the field of youth (COM(2003) 272 – C5-0257/2003 – 2003/0113(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0357/2003) by Doris Pack, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a Community action programme to promote bodies active at European level and support specific activities in the field of education and training (COM(2003) 273 – C5-0255/2003 – 2003/0114(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0359/2003) by Ulpu Iivari on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a Community action programme to promote bodies active at European level in the field of culture (COM(2003) 275 – C5-0262/2003 – 2003/0115(COD)) Before the vote on Amendment 15:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first I should like to thank my colleague Mr Oostlander for letting me move up the speakers' list so that I can go back to my visitors' group. This debate, on which there is a great degree of consensus, is not about whether Turkey joins the EU, but about what sort of country Turkey is. In the raid that was authorised by the state security corps, in the words of the Human Rights Association, and I quote, ‘all of our private notebooks, all notes, all of our computers, our files and all our reports were taken, all faxes and e-mails sent to the offices were read and some were taken away’. Not only is this not good for Turkey, it is also highly destabilising that an agent of the state, namely the state security corps, is acting so clearly against the interests of Turkey. The message it is sending outside is that it is trying to subvert the very democracy that the Turkish Government is trying to build. Is it not ironic that immediately after the raid the officials go to meet the foreign minister and the minister for human rights? It is our job as a Parliament to place ourselves firmly behind those people in Turkey who are promoting democracy, to make it quite clear that we support those agents of the state who are saying that this is not the way to run it and that we support people like Abdullah Gul, who clearly was deeply upset by this activity. The fact of the matter is that in a modern democratic state, the state security corps and the military have to be subordinate to the civilian power – that is the definition of a modern democratic state. There are many people in Turkey working towards those aims and I believe that this Parliament, in passing this resolution, can give support to those people. We are not saying yes or no to Turkey in the EU; we are saying we want to back the people of Turkey in making their country a decent, good sort of place that they will all be proud to live in.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the idea is an excellent one and is already incorporated in the jointly adopted motion for a resolution, and thus no longer needs to be added here. We therefore do not support this verbal amendment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her report. It is indeed the case that aviation is growing rapidly. I share Mrs Foster’s view that aviation is a major economic sector, a sector which provides services which are irreplaceable up to a point. At the same time, however, it is abundantly clear that such a sector also brings with it a number of adverse environmental effects, such as noise and air pollution, and that we need to invite the sector to take a pro-active approach in dealing with this issue as quickly as possible, more so than is the case at present. Both the Commission statement and Mrs Lucas’ report provide guidelines as to how this can and must be done. I would like to highlight a few points. It is clear, as Mr Wiersma has already stated, that the different modes of transport – road, train, etc. and also aviation – must be treated the same way as much as possible, which is not the case at the moment. There are specific reasons for this, but something must be done about the matter. I believe that it is clear that, in tackling the problems of noise, standards, tax on kerosene, etc, we should certainly at the present time opt for a worldwide approach. A regional approach is premature at the moment, and I am pleased that the rapporteur has amended a number of her points in the original text to this effect. In my opinion, the European Union does not need to take any unilateral measures at the moment, if I can put it that way. There are important negotiations under way, Commissioner, which will have a positive outcome, or at least we can still be hopeful of this. I believe that this is a factor of importance. Another important point is that noise must be tackled by means of a package of measures. Hence my amendment to provide details of these measures. I have also tabled an amendment to develop a common method of measurement which will enable us to curb competition between different airports, as referred to by Mr Wiersma. It is, of course, important for competition between airports not to have any adverse effects on the people who live in the vicinity and on the environment. I believe that this is a factor of importance and that is why we need European regulations in order to prevent competition between the different airports.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission has presented us with a new modification of the guidelines for the trans-European transport networks, in which it proposes extending the number of priority projects which will be declared to be of European interest. We do not agree with some of them, but, above all, what we cannot accept is that, in parallel, a quick start list should be proposed to the Council, which would be restrictive, with the justification that it is necessary for the Community's growth strategy. If we want the priority projects to be implemented between now and the end of 2006, we propose the establishment of a funding bonus for works certificates genuinely executed within this period of time. This would really contribute to development, and not restrictive measures such as the quick start list. We welcome the inclusion of the motorways of the sea, but we must view them as cross-border routes so that they can have access to as much Community funding as possible. Finally, for those cases in which States have difficulties funding a certain project of European interest in time, we would request that interested autonomous communities and regions which have their own resources be permitted to present proposals to implement them, and also that these communities be able to access aid for funding trans-European transport networks included in all lines of the Community budgets.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I feel that it is very important that cooperation should be extended between EU Member States and other European States that have a formidable tradition in research in this field, such as Russia, and countries further afield, in order to harness the potential for space exploration for peaceful purposes. This will make a significant contribution towards addressing the serious problems and meeting the urgent needs faced by the human race. I therefore deplore the fact that most Members of this House voted against the proposals for amendments tabled by my group, which sought to ensure that ‘space must be used solely for peaceful purposes, for the benefit of the entire human race’ and which vehemently oppose ‘any use of space for developing or supporting military activities’. We are equally appalled that this House has called on the EU to make ‘a significant financial commitment that specifically provides for developing space-based research into global security’, acknowledging the contribution that the ‘space policy could make to Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common European Security and Defence Policy’ and calling for defence-related companies to coordinate programmes in order to achieve this objective. Space policy would thus become part of the framework of the militarisation of space, something that I find deeply worrying. I therefore voted against. - Future of the textiles sector (B5-0046/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have not yet reached the point that a number of people whom I have heard speak this evening have reached. As matters stand, infrastructure investments are made in waterways and other transport modes, for example. Nobody knows exactly how much is invested. On the other hand, the state receives revenue from transport, such as road tax. Nobody knows precisely how much this amounts to, but one thing we do know is that it is not directly re-invested in roads and other forms of infrastructure. This report addresses the balance between revenue and expenditure; intangible costs such as environmental and noise-related costs are also taken into account. Some people also want to recoup the cost of traffic jams from those who get stuck in them, according to the ‘polluter pays’ principle. I think this is an excellent principle and I would like to see it applied in full, but not to traffic jams. Traffic jams are indicative of failed government policy on the infrastructure front, which is why the government itself, certainly in the Netherlands, must be regarded as the polluter. This report talks about balancing the payment of social costs between the different modes of transport. Let us take a moment to consider the train in this light. Road transport always seemed to cause far more pollution than rail transport. Following research, this seems not to be the case. Now the question is: what are we actually seeking to achieve by making social costs visible in this way? Do we really want an objective, rational assessment of the costs of the transport modes, or, if certain results do not meet with our approval, for example if rail transport becomes prohibitively expensive as a result, will we end up making a political assessment? We want people to travel by train and so it must be made more affordable. That is fine by me, but not by using this method. We are not going to tax water and road transport heavily first on the basis of the theoretical model, and then spare the train. Road and passenger traffic already pay far more than their share in terms of social costs. So either we stop beating about the bush, so that everyone knows what they can be for or against, or we operate a well-balanced and proportional system with guarantees for the disabled, people who live in rural areas and have no choices, and the competition position of the Union. Commissioner, I must say, this is a hornet’s nest you have got yourself into. Why should a system of this kind only be applied to the transport sector? Why should it not be applied to aluminium factories, hospitals, ski runs, hypermarkets, parliament buildings and high-voltage networks too?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Galicia’s national poet, Rosalia de Castro, who always felt great solidarity with the fate of the Galician people, coined the phrase ‘black shadow’ to express a sense of anguish that troubled her. Today Galicia, and also the whole of Europe, is suffering from the ‘black shadow’ caused by political irresponsibility and the contemptible interests of the mafias that control maritime traffic and flags of convenience. The Prestige disaster is now the fourth to have occurred off the coast of Galicia in recent years. The names ‘Urquiola’, ‘Aegean Sea’ and ‘Casou’ are, together with that of the Prestige, part of our consciousness and of our collective misfortunes. On the Coast of Death and in the Rias Baixas and the Rias Altas, these misfortunes are remembered even more sharply. Therefore, in these emergency situations, we, the men and women of Galicia wonder: what good to us is the Spanish State – the authority whose main task and responsibility at this historic time is to protect our people, our nature, the marvellous Galician nature, and our economy, the persistent and long-suffering Galician economy? What good to us is the head of the State government who was absent from Galicia at a tragic time, whilst the inhabitants of the Coast of Death and the Rias were under attack from the Prestige, and who, to universal scorn, was in Prague with NATO, dining out and sycophantically applauding President Bush and his unilateral and ‘preventive’ strikes? As a Galician and a supporter of European integration, I wonder, what major action have the Galician and EU authorities taken in this tragic situation? It is precisely in this Parliament that reactionary positions by Members contributed – and in this context I must agree with the Commissioner – to changing the legislation contained in the ‘Erika’ package, which would have prevented this accursed ship from continuing to move around our seas. Let us not be under any illusion: this disaster has consequences identical to those of a natural disaster, but it is really a political disaster and we know who the guilty parties are. Mr President, the location of the European Safe Seas Agency has still not been decided on, in contravention of the ‘Erika’ legislation. Once again, the governments of the Member States have not been equal to the circumstances. Following what has happened in Galicia, can any doubt remain that the Agency should be based in a region in which there is the greatest concentration of intercontinental traffic and where there is the greatest risk of accident? (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
We are in favour of abolishing value added tax because it is a tax that is particularly unfair and we are in favour of it being replaced with a highly progressive tax on income and by a high tax on profits. Whilst being against taxation, we do not want to prevent the extension of reduced rates of VAT for some sectors even though the choice of sectors benefiting from this measure is arbitrary and restrictive. We voted in favour of this report for this single reason, but this vote does not in any way imply support for the indirect tax system in general, or for VAT in particular.

Political group: GUE-NGL