GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I voted in favour of the Brok report on enlargement because I believe that plenary should send out a positive signal to the 10 countries applying for membership of the European Union. Nonetheless, I have serious reservations about certain aspects of the resolution. I think that the European Parliament should throw off its present financial straitjacket and call for a substantial increase in the Community budget, so that the cohesion countries can continue to receive structural aid and new members are not treated, financially speaking, as second-class citizens. I also think that our main priority should be to support the large sections of society in European countries being swept aside by neo-liberal policies, the sell-off of public property and the dismantling of welfare systems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, in the six month period starting now, during which Ireland is taking over the Presidency of the Council, there are two important events: the historic unification of Europe with the accession of ten new countries on 1 May and the European elections next June in our twenty-five Member States. The events of the next six months will surely be dominated by the continuance of the Intergovernmental Conference, which is responsible for preparing a new constitution for Europe after the failure of the Brussels summit in December. It is clear that the European Union will be in a better position to welcome these new members if it already has a constitution. You were pragmatic, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, when you recently spoke out against the idea of setting a final deadline for reaching an agreement on the future constitutional treaty. However, you were also wise in warning against extending the IGC too much. Like you, I think that the longer the negotiations go on, the smaller the chances will be of reaching an agreement. I have therefore quite understood your desire to make every effort to encourage the decision-making process, because institutional confusion should not cause us to forget the historic event of the ten new Member States joining the EU, countries that have largely proved themselves worthy of joining a Community of value and freedom. Let us ensure that the indecision that we have been guilty of does not paralyse the entire European plan. In less than six months, the citizens of the united Europe will be called upon, in the European elections, to decide together on the future of our continent. Traditionally, and unfortunately, the electorate is not interested in this vote, because what is at stake seems to be too distant or obscure to them. I hope that the Irish Presidency and all the Member States of the EU will tackle this problem and try to mobilise citizens by organising a European debate giving them a real choice between the different options available to Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe we are all in favour of the International Criminal Court. There are no disagreements about this. We are dealing with an issue of procedure and my Group is in favour of a debate with a resolution in the second September part-session. But if you will allow me, Mr President, I am going to make a proposal which I believe will interest Mr Cohn-Bendit and many other members of the House. I would also point out that my Group expressed its disagreement with dealing with a question on Mercosur during this sitting. My proposal is as follows: the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy should include this issue in its next meeting, with an express request to the Commission to communicate the opinion, which appears to exist, on the possible consequences for a Member State of altering its position in relation to a common position adopted, since there is a common position on this point, and, apparently, that represents a violation of the Treaties. The issue is very important and I would ask – I cannot see Mr Brok, but I imagine this will be communicated to him – that the Foreign Affairs Committee consider it. In a common position, we have all – the Member States and Parliament – given our word. This should be looked into and, if it is a violation of the Treaties, Parliament would be in a much stronger position to condemn any possible unilateral change of position on such an important issue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is a debate which is bedevilled with hypocrisy. We see products on sale claiming to be free from animal testing when the manufacturers know perfectly well that the products may not have been tested on animals, but that the ingredients were. We see countries like my own, claiming to have banned animal testing, when all they have done is export the problem to countries where animals are even less respected. What we need and what this report brings us towards is a ban on the marketing of products tested on animals. Of course, what we need is to ensure that safety is our key criterion. Human health must not be put at risk by what we are doing. We must bear in mind the range of products that we are talking about – it is not just the cosmetics that we put on our faces; it is also the toothpastes, the sunscreens, the baby products, the lens cleansers and so on. Our aim must be a realistic timetable to phase out products which have been tested on animals by setting a deadline for each of those tests. We have to reconcile the interests of human health and those of animal welfare, and it can be done. Our amendments would ban with immediate effect those tests for which alternatives have been validated. It would set a deadline for each of the others, according to the stage reached in the process of validating an alternative, up to a maximum of five years. It would acknowledge that for the three tests for which there are as yet no alternatives there would be a maximum of ten years in which to find alternatives, after which those tests would stop too. We are tired of waiting on this issue. We have waited five years; we have waited 1,825 days since this measure should have been brought in. In that time, we have seen 190,000 animals suffer and be destroyed. We want to bring that to an end. We need safe cosmetic products. We need human health to be ensured and we need animal testing to be stopped. It is time to bring this issue to a conclusion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I agree with what the previous speaker has said regarding the inconsistency and poor organisation of the material, which needed much more thorough treatment. I agree too with the first statement made this morning, when a Member mentioned the refugees who died off the coast of Spain. I am sad to say that such incidents are very common off the coasts of Italy as well. Approximately 150 million people live outside the country in which they were born and the application of human rights standards is inadequate in many situations. The best is the enemy of the good: when we aim too high, we often achieve nothing in practice. Consider the 1990 Vienna human rights convention, which was signed by many countries but ratified by very few because the standards it lays down are too specific. Then there are, especially nowadays, parties which have made the fight against immigrants a priority in their programme. Moreover, immigrants are often used as a reserve source of temporary labour, their visas are often linked to a temporary work permit and their social security is reduced to a minimum. I do not feel that any of this has been dealt with adequately in our document. Immigration levels were higher in the past than they are now, but the issue was not then on the agenda, or not a priority. Only now has it reached the top of the agenda, as the Commissioner responsible for immigration has stated that there will only be 100 000 refugees entering the Union each year in ten, fifteen years’ time, which means that an average-sized industrialised country will only be receiving 5000 and industry, in particular, will be complaining of the lack of immigrants. I do not feel that this fact has been taken into due consideration either. In any case, my view is, if we are going to tackle this issue, we must do so more thoroughly and more competently.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to take up a question which is close to the heart of the Portuguese Presidency, namely Angola, a country in which a civil war has been going on for twenty-five years which is now the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe. We know who is behind the fact that it was not possible to implement the Lusaka Agreement. It is UNITA, in the first place. The world has also, therefore, introduced sanctions against UNITA. There is also the risk of this conflict spilling over into the region generally, due to the fact that government troops have gone into neighbouring states and that UNITA has joined forces with armed groups in other countries. As I say, at a humanitarian level, this is the world’s largest humanitarian disaster, with two million internal refugees and dreadful suffering on both sides. We therefore want Portugal, and especially its government with its democratic, anticolonial tradition, to also state before Parliament what measures it intends to take in order to contribute to a solution. It is only a political solution which can produce peace and reconciliation in Angola.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to congratulate Mr Brok on what is a full and very interesting report. From reading his report it is clear that if three conditions are met, there is every reason to be optimistic that we can make a success of enlargement. These three conditions are firstly that the Commission makes a success of its own pre-accession strategy, particularly in the areas of regional policy, agricultural policy and environmental policy. Secondly, that the candidate countries continue to make the good progress that they are making towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria and towards the full and complete enforcement of the acquis communautaire in advance of accession. Thirdly, perhaps the most difficult, that the Council agrees new institutional arrangements that allow the Community to function efficiently, effectively and democratically after enlargement. The Brok report gives us grounds for satisfaction, but no room for complacency.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, particularly in light of recent events, today's debate – which I believe we are conducting in a genuinely objective way – is a good example to other parliaments. It is extremely necessary, but because it is necessary, it is also very difficult. Sadly, we now have to begin yet again to dismantle prejudices against people seeking asylum. These prejudices result from fears which are largely unjustified but which must nonetheless be taken seriously. Now in particular, I think it is important that we no longer engage in lengthy speech-making but take action. I believe that those people who, in the wake of the recent outrages, shouted for the military to intervene must admit that as politicians, we bear responsibility now more than ever and that we must prove that we are not responding in blind panic but are capable of acting responsibly to deal with the difficulties we face. For this reason – and I say this to the Members on the Conservative benches – we are not acting as if we are in fundamental agreement with Mr Schmitt or Mr Pirker because we like them as individuals. There are reasons why we are changing our voting behaviour and voting differently from our group on a number of amendments. The background is as follows: although we are delighted that the in this House is doing everything possible to grant refugees more protection and rights, which we greatly welcome, we have a problem as German Social Democrats. We cannot accept an agreement or decision if it does not conform with the German constitution. At present, the German Basic Law does not permit us to accept around 17 of the proposed amendments. For this reason, we have to adopt a different voting behaviour from our group on a number of these amendments. This does not imply that we have different objectives. Our objectives are the same. However, we have to consider the credibility of our policies in Germany. We cannot disappoint our citizens and accept a decision which is impossible to implement at home. This is why we will be adopting a different voting behaviour today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is not a simple ethical issue. It is about the taking of human lives for research purposes. That is why I would like to put a very precise question to the Commissioner: can you guarantee that no European taxpayers could find themselves paying, through their taxes, for research that would be subject to legal penalties if it were being carried out in their own Member State?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to speak on the subject of items 9 to 12 inclusive of the report by our fellow Member, Mr Gasòliba i Böhm, in order to specify our approach to the concept of universal service. Universal service must be defined in relation to the new technological environment. Current developments, particularly in information and communication technology, tending towards digital technology, have an irrevocable catalysing force. It is up to the authorities to meet the challenge by enabling every citizen, whatever their situation, to benefit on a fair basis according to their needs from an identical quality of service. That is where the advantage of a universal service lies. In actual fact, technological developments make it possible to view universal service in an offensive and proactive manner rather than in a defensive backward-looking fashion, as a limited set of often mediocre public services, which people carefully avoid using, unless really driven to it. Thus, the prospects offered in the medium term by the generalised use within Europe of new ‘smart card’ type identity papers lead to a redefinition and readjustment of universal service, polarised on two vectors of change: a service level agreement and a rich content. We should like to see the real possibility of developing in this direction so that this universal service may contribute to balanced realisation of what was set as a strategic objective at the extraordinary European Council meeting in Lisbon in March 2000.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mrs Maes is not present in the Chamber. She is attending a Bureau meeting of our group. But I noticed that she is not listed on yesterday’s attendance register. She was quite definitely there. She spoke in the debate on the Swedish Presidency. I would ask you to amend the attendance register accordingly.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I could tell my good friend, Mr Pronk, that if he will have a word with Mr Aznar, I will have a word with Mr Blair. It is a majority proposal. We have problems with a number of governments. I should like to thank the Commissioner for what she has said. I see now the sense in the strategy that she is adopting. I hope the delay in a revised proposal might lead to progress. I would say this, however: please bear in mind that if part of this strategy is that a new proposal is brought forward after the turn of the year that is substantially different to the first then we, Parliament, would need to be consulted from the beginning once again. Please bear that in mind. One argument in addition to the list of crunch points that you mentioned in your introduction that has been deployed by my own government and others is that of subsidiarity. It is not a very good argument in this particular area. In the ten years up to 1996, following the introduction of the Single Act, there was a tripling in the number of mergers and take-overs in both the service and manufacturing sectors. An interesting thing is that two-thirds of those mergers and take-overs were at national rather than transnational level. They were, however, directly related to the completion of the internal market. Therefore developments at Member State level are inextricably linked to the changes we have put in place at European level. That is one of the strongest arguments against subsidiarity – denying progress in this area. In the 1970s our governments, despite the unanimity rule, introduced a directive on transfers, one on collective redundancies and one on insolvency to try to bring about responsible restructuring following the oil shocks. It is absolutely dreadful that the Council now seems to be paralysed when it comes to this directive, to the worker involvement in the company statute and indeed the Commission in relation to a revision of the Works Council Directive. We need to get this moving once again.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to start by extending my express thanks to Mr Morillon and Mr Seppänen for their reports. Mr Morillon, in my view, your report is an exceptionally realistic and responsible report. We have indeed seen a number of interesting symbolic acts on the part of the Turkish Government since the Helsinki Council resolution several months ago. However, nothing has been done to change the horrendous situation in Turkish jails, discrimination against the Kurds or Turkey's policy on Cyprus. The constitutional role of the Turkish military, which is irreconcilable with the rule of law and democratic mores, has become, without doubt, one of the keys to future relations between the EU and Turkey and will only be resolved if the military relinquishes its power. There may well be differences of opinion on the Morillon report within my group, but one thing is clear – and I imagine this is true of the other groups – and that is that we have no intention whatsoever of mitigating our criticism on these issues. Compromise is possible almost everywhere, except here. The most important and tangible result so far is that a debate has begun and a certain degree of political differentiation has started to emerge in Turkey. We must acknowledge and actively support this. Nonetheless, what we are looking for here is not just compliance with the Copenhagen criteria but compulsory democratic standards. Turkey's membership on this basis, rather than for the geo-strategic reasons put forward by the USA or NATO, would enrich the European Union and represent a significant step towards a united Europe. I have not overlooked the problems which this might cause, such as the fact that, geographically, the EU would then stretch well beyond Europe into what are highly unstable regions from the point of view of security policy. The fact that the strategic aspects of the prospects of European integration have been addressed neither by the governments nor, Commissioner, by the Commission, and have not been discussed with Parliament in connection either with Turkey's candidate status or with current enlargement to the east is, in my view, unacceptable given the implications. In my experience – the experience, I may add, of a life which knows just as much about radical social change as the refusal to recognise the need for it in time –, there is no substitute for critical candour. Anything else would simply play into the hands of those in the EU and in Turkey who oppose this membership. And that is where, Commissioner Verheugen, I start to lose the plot in your progress report. When you visited Turkey in March, you at least referred to the Kurdish problem by name, as you did here today. Your report makes no mention of this problem per se. I think that is a tragic step backwards in comparison with the old Commission's 1999 report. Truth is where the concept corresponds with its reality. At least that is what Mr Hegel believed. I have yet to see any real progress in Turkey, but I do believe it is possible. But, in my book, the Commission report is a real step backwards. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Seixas da Costa, very much for his reply, which gives us hope since it demonstrates that the Council understands the problem, is responding politically and perhaps even sympathises with the idea. Nevertheless, I consider his reply to be basically too retrograde. The Helsinki and Cologne Summits specifically gave the Portuguese Presidency the job of strengthening this new protection policy. You have said that you are against quotas but in favour of references. I would like to ask the Portuguese Presidency: do you not think it would be highly appropriate to include a reference, in the form of a recommendation, in this respect? I believe that the role of the European Union should not be to remain behind the United Nations or to be content merely with a reference to what Beijing was about. The European Union must be progressive. Women must clearly be involved in political decisions – also decisions with regard to peace – and I ask the Portuguese Presidency to make some reference in this respect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, today the President of Latvia visited the European Parliament. The story of Mrs Vike Freiberga is illustrative of the courage in adversity shown by the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe. As a seven year-old girl she was forced to flee her country before the advance of the Red Army, a fugitive hiding in ditches to avoid being strafed by Soviet aircraft. We might also choose to remember the heroism of Solidarnosc in Poland, the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Havel, the generations in Hungary since 1956 who have sought to restore their freedom and independence. On the one hand, Mr Védrine, we see courage and even heroism; on the other we look at the Council of Ministers, the IGC about to assemble in Nice: Do we see courage, resolution, determination to succeed? At the moment, as your address has demonstrated, we see disunion, squabbling and the prospect of failure. Will you be able at Nice to support the European Parliament’s resolution which calls upon the preparations to be secure so that the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe may vote in the next European Parliamentary elections in 2004? Will you, President Prodi and your colleague Commissioner Verheugen, instruct the Commission to open those chapters for the applicant countries who have achieved everything we have so far required so that at Nice we can look the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe in the eye and say: yes, we have succeeded in making the necessary reforms and within the lifetime of one Parliament you will also take your place in Brussels and Strasbourg. I do not believe that failure is an option. We have been talking about Amsterdam leftovers. Our public in the EU and the public in the candidate countries will not accept the prospect of Nice leftovers, of a second IGC in 2004. I hope that we are in a position to congratulate the French Presidency for its success; but if you fail, we shall be harsh in our condemnation. IN THE CHAIR: MR WIEBENGAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE