GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I would like to congratulate the President-in-Office on the successful conclusion in Copenhagen of an outstanding Danish presidency. It is rare in my experience for a presidency to receive such wide praise from all sides of this House. The improvement in relations between the Council and Parliament has been notable, and we owe much in this regard to the role of our former, much-esteemed colleague, Mr Haarder. The outcome of the summit is a tribute to the negotiating skills of Mr Fogh Rasmussen and the persistence both he and his team displayed. Their decision to focus single-mindedly on enlargement paid off handsomely: Europe can now reunite. However, we must not be complacent. The full application of the Copenhagen criteria, both in the new countries and in the existing Member States, must remain a matter of concern. Moreover, there are referenda to be won in all the new countries – referenda in which each and every one of us can play an important part, if we so choose. Copenhagen offers Bulgaria and Romania the prospect of greater pre-accession aid and the objective of membership in 2007. While these two countries will clearly be in the next wave of enlargement, we should continue to be guided by the principle that each candidate will be judged on its own merits. Liberal Democrats would have preferred an earlier review of Turkey's readiness for accession. However, Turkey is clearly now on the path to membership and, if the Copenhagen criteria are met by the end of 2004, my group will hold the governments to their commitment to open membership negotiations. An agreement on the United Nations plan to reunite Cyprus would have been the icing on the cake of the Copenhagen Council. Nonetheless, we remain optimistic that agreement can be reached so that a united Cyprus can sign the Accession Treaty in April 2004. We hope that Turkey will seize the opportunity to confirm its European vocation by putting pressure on Mr Denktash to reach a compromise. However, celebrations over the historic decision to reunite Europe – and I welcome the very prominent role played by Liberals in the Council, Commission and Parliament, whether those on the benches in front of us apply that label to themselves or not – should not be allowed to overshadow another significant breakthrough at Copenhagen. That was the agreement with Turkey to allow the EU's Rapid Reaction Force to go ahead and have access to Nato's resources. Europe's security and defence ambitions can now be put to the test as the EU takes over Operation Amber Fox in Macedonia. This may pave the way for more ambitious missions in the future, including peace-enforcement operations in accordance with the UN Charter. A wider Europe must be prepared to shoulder its responsibilities in the world, whether in the Middle East – I congratulate the Council on its firm declaration on that conflict – or elsewhere. We must be a bulwark for freedom and democracy and a force for justice. In building that strength, we owe much to Denmark. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I should like to thank you very much for extending your sympathies and condolences on the occasion of this terrible tragedy which we have just experienced. Many of these mainly young people boarded the train with the prospect of enjoying themselves, having fun and experiencing something positive, and they instead experienced a terrible and tragic death. I should like to thank you – I do not know whether anyone else will be speaking about this – on behalf of many Members of this House and, in any case, on behalf of my group and my delegation. Madam President, may I take this opportunity, since you addressed this matter in such clear and sympathetic terms, to say that for this reason we can dispense with having a topical and urgent debate on this matter. I would ask you to understand that for this reason we do not really need to have the topical and urgent debate.

Political group: PSE
There was a time when the preparation and implementation of government policy was kept secret as far as possible, as the ordinary man in the street did not need to know how and with what arguments they were governed. This objective of secrecy has even survived the introduction of universal suffrage. These days, however, it is assumed that every individual is equal in the eyes of the law, that authorities are accountable to their electorate and that, with regard to government policy, there is public access to information. However, traditional secrecy strikes again in the case of public security, defence and military matters. This could be justified in the short term if the majority of the population is being threatened by a dangerous minority of profiteers who want to abolish their constitutional rights. On the other hand, secrecy can also protect powerful profiteers from popular anger. The solution opted for, namely a voluntary agreement between Parliament and the Council, seems more appealing than it really is. The public does not have a right of perusal, whilst Parliament does, albeit restricted to four members jointly appointed by the group chairmen, presided over by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. In practice, the vast majority of MEPs, and even entire parliamentary groups, will be kept in the dark. Such a committee on security affairs thus only serves to protect secrecy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wanted to propose deleting the last sentence of my own amendment which starts with the words ‘stresses that’ and ends with ‘Association process’ because it is very harsh, in my eyes too harsh, on the Croatian Government and its efforts. (The House agreed to table the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0354/2002) by Mrs Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the first progress report from the Commission on economic and social cohesion [COM(2002) 46 – C5-0198/2002 – 2002/2094(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the compromise reached by the Council and Parliament after much deliberation represents progress for animal welfare, as it will mean a ban on animal testing in cosmetics – as long as there are alternative methods available, of course. Congratulations are in order for that. I am wholly in favour of it. I am also extremely pleased about the transitional period of six years to allow alternatives to be found, as there are only three categories of tests that are particularly difficult to replace and the industry has until 2013 to develop alternative methods for these. After all, ladies and gentlemen, let us be honest, which of you would volunteer to be tested with new substances? The widespread criticism about this transitional period, which argues that permitting animal testing to continue is a loophole in the law, is therefore unjustified. As long as people do not volunteer for testing themselves, other ways of testing certain bulk products must be permitted. After all, these bulk products are also used in the pharmaceutical industry, and the standards we apply to medicines are naturally different from those we apply to lipstick. I therefore wholeheartedly endorse this compromise.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, may we ask what Mr Solana and Mr Patten are doing to translate into action their professed will to avoid war, beyond reassessing the need to disarm the awful Iraqi regime, beyond formally relying on the Security Council to do so or even trusting Mr Powell to testify as an eye witness that Bin Laden has been bedding with Saddam Hussein? The problem is that the decision to bomb Iraq into a morgue unfit for the dead was taken a long time ago on the Potomac. People all over the world have understood this and are angry and are mobilising against it. It is all very well to say that we must announce the role of the United Nations. But, may I ask, who is demeaning that role and proclaiming every day that, with or without the United Nations, war will be unleashed, probably by 6 March 2003, whatever the Security Council may or may not say? Regarding solid evidence, we do not know for sure if this bloody dictator still has these awful weapons and neither does Dr Blix. What the United States is asking from Saddam Hussein, however, is not to prove his innocence but to provide evidence of his own guilt, that is, to put his own neck in the noose to be hanged or be bombed to smithereens. If this were a criminal case, it would be thrown out of any court in this world. So, to adapt the words of Mr Solana and Mr Patten, there is quite a lot of ambiguity, obfuscation and the undeclared will to follow the warmongering lead of Washington, hoping only that the United Nations will provide the desired fig leaf. This, we must say, probably for the last time, is a defining moment for Europe. This Union must reclaim the moral and rational initiative and, first of all, save itself from some of its leaders.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to welcome the Taoiseach, Mr Bertie Ahern, and his colleagues here today. The Irish presidency should not allow itself to be hijacked or bullied and pressurised into ensuring that an EU constitution is pushed through during its six-month term. Failure to reach a final agreement on the controversial Constitution will not mean failure for the Irish presidency – unless of course the government is foolish enough to give the impression that such an agreement could somehow be reached. You may believe that if the Constitution were adopted during the Irish presidency, it would have a better chance of success in an Irish referendum. That will not be the case since those concerned about the issues will not be swayed to support it simply because it was finalised during that presidency. As you yourself know, Taoiseach, those in Ireland who are critical of the EU are so mainly because of the military implications of this Constitution. If the Constitution is to become a priority, then some key issues must be addressed. These relate in particular to military aspects, including structured cooperation, but also to the issue of the Euratom Treaty, which clearly must come to an end, especially for a country which is anti-nuclear. Much more time is needed to address the Constitution and the monumental decisions it entails, and the more time allowed the better. This would also give ordinary people throughout the European Union time to lobby for referenda on this issue. It would be a terrible blow to the democratic process if the people of Europe were not asked their opinion on this matter. The privilege we have in Ireland should be extended to all Member States. Your party colleague, Mr Gerard Collins, was correct in saying that everything can continue under the existing rules. We were told that the Treaty of Nice was essential for enlargement. Now we are told it is insufficient. Let the Irish presidency be a constructive and positive one. Let the issues that really matter to the people take priority, such as the Irish Government's support for 100% debt cancellation for the world's poorest countries. This initiative has widespread support, so let us take this opportunity to push for its realisation. You briefly mentioned environmental issues and you should take this opportunity to ensure that all the outstanding complaints against Ireland in relation to breaches of EU law are addressed and resolved. On the issue of the EU-Russia summit, which you also mentioned, it is essential that the major issue of Chechnya be raised with the Russians. The issue of the arms embargo to China is also one of major concern to those worried about the arms trade. Regarding the Middle East, I would urge Minister Cowen, who is going there today, to raise the concerns of many Members of this Parliament. Members who have just returned from Palestine say that the situation there is absolutely appalling. The walls which have been built there completely defy any kind of international logic or law.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I agree with and support most of what has been said, but I wish to raise two points. The first concerns the whereabouts of Aung San Suu Kyi. She has not been seen for many days, in fact since the end of May, when it was reported that up to 70 people were killed by the junta army and that she suffered a head injury. The fact that she has not been seen and that her whereabouts is unknown raises serious concerns about whether she is alive and what kind of condition she is in. This Parliament and the institutions have to send a very strong message to the Burmese authorities that international bodies must immediately have access to her. It is of crucial importance. We need to know immediately what kind of situation she is in. My second point concerns the resolution itself, which contained a call for new elections. I understand now that all the political groups have agreed to this being removed. I am glad, because it would send a very dangerous signal at this time. In other words, it would mean giving in to the logic of the generals, not accepting the decision of the people and basically undermining the National League for Democracy. I am glad that the parties who wanted this in have agreed to take it out, because it would be a really dangerous and very bad signal to send at this time to the military regime in Burma.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, this issue divides our Member States as it does people across the world, sometimes with an intensity comparable to religious conviction. I confess to having no such absolute certainties. I am a sceptic rather than an opponent of genetically modified crops. I acknowledge that they may bring about benefits in terms of the reduced use of pesticides and herbicides, that there are no proven health risks – or none yet established – and that GM crops could, across the world, be grown in circumstances which would not permit the growth of conventional crops. However, I see no certain gains from growing GM products in Europe. I believe changes in European and American trade policies are likely to prove of greater benefit to developing nations, and I have fears that we could be making mistakes that will have unforeseen consequences for our environment. A common framework of policies is needed if we are to avoid the risk of a trade war with the United States, with appeals to the WTO, and to curb the risk of divisions amongst ourselves across the European Union. I await with interest the result of the field trials currently being carried out in my own country, to see whether they provide any evidence on the effects of biodiversity. I am pleased to hear that the Commission's proposals for guidelines on the subject of coexistence are on schedule. It is vital that these ensure that conventional and organic growers should not lose out as a result of this technology. They must be protected from the risk of financial loss, and the proposals here should allow individual Member States to take significant steps to prevent cross-contamination – at least that is the hope. There is a strong sense that we are all being driven too fast by narrow commercial interests, mainly concentrated in the United States. As a result, I have no doubt that this is an imperfect package and we will have to return to this subject. In the meantime consumers must be given the information to make their own choices and, if this ultimately slows the development of this technology while more research is undertaken, then that may be no bad thing.

Political group: ELDR
I too, Madam President, would like to take the opportunity during these last sittings to congratulate Mrs Randzio-Plath on her work and to offer her my friendship again, as well as Mr Jonckheer and Mr Goebbels and the others. We have not only deplored the European Union’s situation of profound underemployment and weak growth, but we have sought to build an economic policy at European Union level. In order to overcome the various obstacles, I too would like, moreover, now to put forward some political objectives. The first is that we must first of all seize the opportunity that enlargement offers. The new Member States want growth and they need solidarity. Just like us, and even more so, it is in their interest that the enlarged Europe be a much more dynamic region of the world. The fears of the West must, therefore, be dispelled and common interest built, which means that positive mobility, restructuring and specialisation strategies that enable human and productive capacities in the East and the West to be increased are essential. How, though, are these to be brought about? The second objective is to create new options in the debate on structural reforms. How can investment be encouraged? Two ways are possible. Only the first of these is being used at the moment: the drawing power of capital for high profitability, with fiscal and statutory competition. Failure is inevitable. Another way is to be opened up. Indeed, we must issue the challenge of a new mixed economy, a mixed economy of multinational cooperation, founded on policies of partnership and networks. This is the structural reform that Europe needs and that we will have to devise. The third objective is the renewal of the macroeconomic framework. The Lisbon strategy chose good objectives and a good driving force, but its guidelines are still very ambiguous and it has not found the tools to work with. The greatest ambiguity reigns as regards its interpretation. National policies differ. The redefinition of this policy must be at the heart of the agenda of the next few years, particularly in relation to the Stability and Growth Pact. I think that with a good European budget and fiscal harmonisation, we would indeed be in a better position to resolve the problems relating to the reduction of national public deficits. Finally, my last point is a question of method. The Member States have got an absolute nerve: they do not respect the Lisbon strategy; they do not take it on board. We must build up the responsibility of the national parliaments and envisage reinforced cooperation in the field of economics, but it is particularly amongst the players of civil society, amongst businesses and territorial communities, that we suffer most from a loss of profit. There is a mass of activities to start, but a great backlog of projects and of players. European policy is only possible on the basis of decentralised participation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it has been gratifying in the course of this debate to note Parliament’s overwhelming endorsement of enlargement. The circle from Copenhagen to Copenhagen is about to be closed. If you come, as I do, from Copenhagen, the delight is naturally that much greater. Nor, then, shall I conceal my pleasure at coming from a country which, according to the opinion polls, is the country which puts enlargement highest on the agenda. It is encouraging to hear from Mr de Miguel about the considerable progress that has been made during the Spanish Presidency. We must express our thanks for the significant contribution that has been made, just as we must thank Commissioner Verheugen for his tireless efforts. We have also heard about the hurdles which remain and which must be overcome: agricultural policy, Kaliningrad, the Cyprus issue and the Beneš decrees. The question is, whether the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Great Britain are to be added to the list. Do not allow them to stand in the way. Let us not lose this historic opportunity to reunify Europe for the sake of freedom, peace and security. Like others, the Danish Presidency too has a three-word motto or slogan. It is ‘enlargement, enlargement, enlargement’. After today’s debate, it could be Parliament’s agenda.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, rarely does a directive have such wide-reaching social implications as the one we are discussing today. It will affect millions of small businesses and millions of individuals who carry on economic activities, even though this may not as yet be apparent. In my opinion, the forecast, as it was established at the end of the negotiations between the Council and Parliament, is precise and essentially correct. A balance has been found which will certainly influence the relations between buyers and sellers significantly. It is a measure which facilitates the market, not one which places restrictions on it, although it does lay down rules – for rules are sometimes essential in order to maintain the free market – and it is therefore a positive preventive action which essentially protects the weakest: both those who are weakest financially and those who are weakest socially. There are some areas of Europe – including certain areas of Italy, for example – where a very successful company has a substantial, decisive, unambiguous influence on the market, which almost amounts to a monopoly. Clearly, this company influences not only prices but also time frames, including settlement periods. This is sometimes negative for those who need to work and are forced to have recourse to this company. The issue is that of equal conditions for public and private industry, which I see as a positive thing and which will affect, or, rather, will be a positive development for public accounts. In fact, you will be aware that public companies settle within a certain period, and this time limit means that it will no longer be possible for private companies who deal with the public sector to impose large, excessive burdens on public companies. Consequently, public expenditure will also be reduced.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the principles in the Bullmann report are linked to the basic ideas from Lisbon, which are to be made more concrete at the European Council in Stockholm in the spring. These principles for Europe’s aim to be a word leader in terms of economic development and growth are necessary in parallel with the development of an ambitious social dimension; this is the whole point. This balance is crucial not only to our success in implementing our strategies but also to the EU achieving increased public support and understanding, especially prior to expansion. On the one hand we have right-wing liberals maintaining that the EU is only necessary for deregulating and opening the markets, creating free trade, etc, while the battle against unemployment and the development of social welfare are exclusively national issues. This implies that some would like to be able to undermine the influence of labour law and the employee and tear up welfare policy, etc without the EU’s interfering. On the other hand, certain GUE politicians are now entering this current debate and attacking the Bullmann report for focusing too much on deregulation and competition. I am therefore pleased that we have still established widespread agreement, excluding the outer fringes to the right and to the left, among those who realise that development of a social dimension is actually a crucial element of a successful economic policy. However, this does not necessarily mean that the EU should take over the Member States’ powers to legislate, although the open coordination method naturally does not exclude legislating. The most important thing is that we develop common aims. These must address both deregulation and liberalisation to a certain extent, as well as common aims for dealing with the problems of unemployment and social exclusion. Few have taken up this aspect. But do not forget how vital this is to expansion, as the content of the Bullmann report will then be even more crucial. The new Member States have an extra need for parallel development within the areas of growth, welfare, social rights and influence for ordinary citizens and employees.

Political group: PSE