GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is amazing that the follow-up report on the discharge seems to be generating far more interest this time than the discharge itself, which was, in fact, prepared by the previous Parliament. I welcome this with open arms, but there is nothing new in the fact that we have compiled such a report and are sticking to it, as we vowed to at the time. Yet I believe we have done justice to our task of verifying whether the Commission has met our demands in relation to the discharge. I am extremely pleased that the rapporteur has taken all these issues up again and would like to congratulate her to this effect. However, I am also delighted to be able to tell the Commission that it has fulfilled these demands extremely well. We are talking conditions, and not just comments. However, there are still a few matters to be resolved. This is also clearly brought out in the report, by the way. I would single out the closure of accounts for special mention in this respect. It is truly alarming when we put in excess of EUR 70 billion to one side, which inflates the budget and is then unavailable for other tasks that the EU has set itself. We must do more to tackle this than just compile a report once every two years; we need to cut back. Commissioner, this is a matter for you. Secondly, I do not think much to the idea of setting up a second office for internal investigations. We have set up OLAF and ought to concentrate far more on ensuring that OLAF is able to carry out its work properly and in an independent manner, particularly its internal investigations. I believe it is important for us to uphold the demand that we raised during the discharge process, namely that of creating a disciplinary chamber, which could be attached to the Court of Auditors or the Court of Justice. I would remind the Commission not just to issue statements on this, but also produce a legal basis. Finally, I would like to say a big thank you for the efforts made in respect of the Gaza hospital. I was there myself. I am delighted that after all these years, it has at long last started work and is evidently serving the people well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the 1990s saw an almost universal opening up of world trade, while, worldwide, with the exception of China, the number of people living in absolute poverty increased. The number of countries classed as ‘least developed’ has increased, while the scale of poverty has continued to be huge in a number of countries with a high growth rate. The relationships between trade, development and poverty are complex, then, and we must avoid hasty judgments. My report to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, which was adopted unanimously, contains proposals on this subject, some of which have been included in the Deva report. I will just focus on two main issues here. Firstly, aid, particularly technical assistance, is a key issue. There is very little information available on this subject but there appear to be a wealth of horror stories. What is essential is that the countries concerned can define their needs and communicate them to international agencies, setting themselves objectives and pursuing them. That is where our support is needed, and we must ensure that civil society and companies in the field participate as widely as possible. We must break with the practice of setting biased conditions which, in actual fact, serve the interests of the dominant countries. Aid must serve principally to create local diversified supply capacity. Any trade administration must be established at the level of regional common markets. The report also requires the WTO to negotiate social measures to give vulnerable peoples new prospects in the face of the impact of liberalisation. Moreover, it calls for the issue of migrant workers to be included in the negotiations on services. Lastly, it calls for aid to offset losses from customs receipts in the least-developed countries. Secondly, the report considers that the place of anti-poverty objectives at the very heart of unilateral trade rules still needs to be defined. I fear that the Commission may be frankly sceptical about Special and Differentiated Treatment. Not so us: we call for it to be redefined. As regards future negotiations on investment, they may prove to be fruitful, but we would warn that direct investments very seldom reach the poorest countries and, when they do, it is in return for tax favours which harm these countries first of all. Without cooperation between the WTO and the other major bodies, without combating financial fragility, it is unlikely that the negotiations on investment will produce fruitful results for all those who are afflicted by poverty in the world.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is only a few weeks since the USA unilaterally decided to attack Iraq. Acting without a UN mandate, the United States began a war of aggression in a flagrant breach of international law. To be precise, it was not the USA alone that initiated the war: a whole string of allies, some of whom acted openly, but others secretly, also joined together in the ‘coalition of the willing’, or perhaps we should say ‘coalition of the compliant’. In addition to the self-appointed occupying powers – the United States, United Kingdom and Poland – the ranks of the coalition of the willing also included such major military powers as Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Kingdom of Tonga. The aim of this war of aggression was, acting in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. There is no legal basis in international law for the attacking forces' additional objective of overthrowing the regime of the dictator Saddam Hussein, nor is there any such provision in the Charter of the United Nations. Nor do I believe that it should be the role of the international community to remove dictators throughout the world by means of warfare. It also leaves a rather unpleasant aftertaste to consider that Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was willing to send umpteen thousand British soldiers into Iraq to hunt down one dictator, while the same Jack Straw, when he was Britain's Home Secretary, decided to release another dictator, Augusto Pinochet, and thereby thus allow him to escape from the clutches of British justice. (Applause) The USA's unilateral war against Iraq achieved its objective of removing Saddam Hussein's regime. However, the war also resulted in appalling collateral damage: the first immediate victim was the United Nations Organisation and international law, the second was the unity of the European Union and the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the third was NATO, which also received its share of ideological cluster bombs. The new doctrine of preventive war, launched by the chief ideologist, Richard Perle, the Lord of Darkness, has also shaken the foundations of NATO. Among the questions that remain to be answered, Mr President and Mr President-in-Office of the Council, are when this war will end and when the end of the war will be declared. So, firstly, what is the European Union doing to ensure that end to the war is declared? Secondly, where are the weapons of mass destruction on account of which the war was declared? If the Americans are not prepared to tell us what the position on weapons of mass destruction is, then we in Europe should at least tackle them and demand a statement. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
We wish to see the progressive deregulation of agriculture, together with a reduction in the size of the agricultural subsidies, and we are therefore voting against this proposal. The Commission’s draft mid-term review was a step in the right direction towards deregulated agriculture benefiting agricultural production. There are serious defects in the Commission’s proposal. We are opposed to all forms of modulation because they fail to promote rational agriculture. We also believe that compensation should be linked to the area utilised. The compromise proposal on which we have now voted would produce locking effects that would be damaging to European agriculture and a retrograde step in the reform process. Fifty per cent of European farmers are over 55 years old. The Commission’s proposal might be seen more as a good pension proposal for farmers than as a plan for phasing out the policy of subsidies. No clear ground rules are provided, however, for the eight per cent of European farmers who are under 35 years of age and who are the future of agriculture.

Political group: PPE-DE
Rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, in 1993 the European Union undertook to open up the telecommunications market. Since then, this decision has led to the adoption of a series of directives, and we have constantly been reminded that there is a political objective underlying these regulations, namely growth, employment, competitiveness and the provision of access to the information society for all citizens, with the necessary legal protection. In this context, the Commission has performed its monitoring role and produced a raft of reports, and the communication we are discussing today is part of this undertaking. I must say that the assessment presented to us is, at least, detailed. Although, during the two years since the market was completely opened up, the telecommunications market has been characterised by growth, newcomers to the market and some price reductions, nonetheless, gaps have also appeared which are serious to say the very least, including what is known as the digital divide between regions and between citizens caused by the cost of accessing these new services and, along with this divide, the exclusion of some citizens or regions from the new technology society. It is therefore imperative that we do not lose sight of the objective of providing a high-quality service for all citizens if we want to avoid creating a fresh division within our society. Moreover, today we are debating reducing the cost of Internet access within the framework of local loop competition. The objective is admirable, but we must avoid certain errors and must, therefore, discuss the matter very thoroughly with the national authorities. Once again, I would stress the need to simplify the rules, as well as consumer protection, the role of the national regulatory authorities and the licensing system which has been discussed at great length. Finally, opening up the market is not an end in itself: it is a means of ensuring that the transition to an information society is made by and for all citizens through the creation of permanent jobs, and this is certainly not always the case in this field.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted against this document because I feel that there has been too much hypocrisy at play in this issue. I suspect, or rather, I fear, that this is what happened: 'Mr President, which weapons shall we use against Milosevic?' 'The ones we usually use!' replied the President. 'Which weapons do we usually use?' asked the general. 'Do you mean depleted uranium shells as well?' 'Yes, why not?' said the President. 'But,' the general protested, 'they can be extremely harmful to those who use them because they are dangerous in war – we have tested them.' 'But, as you know, my dear general,' replied the President, 'war involves calculated risks and we must run these risks as well.' Mr President, in times of war we have to make do, as they say. I do not think we can be surprised at these sad incidents, which could only have been prevented by having a united, independent Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office, in Thessaloniki you made progress on the issue of the Western Balkans and their prospects of acceding to the European Union. That is very good. However, you did not succeed in laying down a timetable. I greatly fear that we shall not anticipate the new conflicts on their way. Secondly: the invasion of Iraq has been followed by military occupation, with the logic behind a military occupation, men in balaclavas, police spies and so on. The occupying forces are, as we learned yesterday, building a new Guantanamo. Politically, what do we say to these gentlemen, whom we sometimes call allies and certain of whom are also members of the European Union? I do not understand. I do not think that we resolve any problems by politically appeasing allies. Thirdly: you have signed an agreement with the USA. The European Parliament accused you on the grounds that this was democratic infringement. The article which you chose excludes the parliaments; however, it says that the Member States can express objections if their internal order so requires. Will Greece do so? Fourthly and lastly, the matter of the Constitutional Treaty really did progress, but with opaque and, in my opinion, very dangerous procedures, which may even change the essence of everything the Convention has done. Question: how will we safeguard the politicisation of the unification of Europe and the limited cooperation which can give impetus to those who really want to do something different against American efforts to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator? Will Greece hold a referendum as part of this effort at politicisation? I do not say this to detract from all the positive things said, but to remind you that politics go on and that there are very serious issues outstanding, including for the continuation of political life in Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I share the opinion of Mrs Jackson and many other speakers who say that once legislation has been laid down, it should be implemented. I also agree with Mrs Jackson and her statement regarding the nitrates directive: 'that was flawed from the beginning'. It was poor legislation. How is it possible, if you want to maintain 50 milligrams of nitrate in groundwater, to apply the same stocking density per hectare across the entire European Union, from Finland to Italy? Needless to say, the growth season in Finland is much shorter than in Italy, and so in Italy, as a general rule, more cattle units per hectare can be kept than in Finland. As far as I am concerned, every farmer can have as many cows as he chooses, as long as he does not exceed the 50 milligram limit. Turning now to measurements, how it is possible that the Commission has not issued any clear guidelines on how measurements are to be taken, the depth levels of these measurements, the number of times a year they should be taken, and how seasonal influences can be taken into consideration? All these factors are still unknown and differ considerably from country to country and season to season. And if nitrate is measured, how is it determined that it originates from animal manure alone? A great number of farmers use artificial fertiliser; how is that measured? What is the impact of sewage leaks, for example? What is the impact of major rivers discharging into other countries? Animal manure cannot be the only cause of nitrate pollution, and it is completely unreasonable to tell farmers to restrict its use if we do not know the other causes. I share the view of all the speakers who say that we must adopt sound environmental policy. I do not dispute the standard of 50 milligrams of nitrate in groundwater, but I do want clear guidelines on how it should be measured and how these measurements should be carried out.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, following on from what Mr Miranda said, I would like, if possible, to ask the European Parliament’s services to inform us, at a later date and in writing, how these gentlemen were able to enter the buildings of the European Parliament.

Political group: PSE
This is a resolution that not only fails to question any of the European Union’s fundamental pillars and policies – its neoliberal capitalist policies, federalism, its increasing militarism – and fails to condemn the harmful consequences of these for the workers and communities in the various countries it actually confirms these guidelines and priorities, and masks their true nature by introducing some social concerns. One example is the resolution’s insistence on the need for the so-called ‘European constitution’. It is reluctant to enter into the debate on the forthcoming financial perspectives (from 2006 onwards) – and this is simply astounding - on the grounds that the European elections are due to be held soon. It welcomes the militarisation of the EU. It does not question the policies of liberalisation – it simply refers to more careful consideration of their ‘possible consequences’. It rejects the proposal for an amendment that proposed a re-evaluation of the Commission’s mandate for the WTO. In short, it gives the Commission yet another role. There is no analysis of the worsening economic and social situation in the various EU countries or any criticism of the policies that have caused this situation. If the truth be told, we could expect nothing else from the political forces that decide, in the EP, in the Commission and in the various governments, on EU policies. Joint resolution: Linas-Marcoussis Agreement in Côte d'Ivoire (B5-0512/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the logical starting point for the key decisions by the European Council was enlargement. So what did the Council do? It completely overturned the enlargement doctrine applied hitherto. Now, we no longer have teams of candidates one after the other but just one race for all the candidate countries together, with Turkey as a candidate country now included. My group, the Coalition, and I personally feel that, in principle, this is a change for the better. Nevertheless, both the Commission and the Council must remember that relations with Turkey are now Euro-Turkish relations and not Graeco-Turkish relations, as they have either hypocritically or maladroitly maintained in the past. I would also point out, Mr President, that as the Union’s borders are expanding, a large black hole is forming in the Balkans. This black hole includes both Serbia and many other countries and is right at the heart of the new geographical area you are building. Is this political short-sightedness or pure vindictiveness? I, for one, do not know. Finally, yet another intergovernmental conference and reform of the Treaty have been announced to address the issue of enlargement. Yet another reform, yet another intergovernmental conference, with no Community approach, no role for the Commission and a meaningless role for Parliament, with no consultation with national parliaments and, finally, with no transparency and no accountability towards the civil society. Is this how we are to increase the prestige and appeal of European unification? Have the Heads of State and Government and the Community bodies not learned anything from Seattle?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, obliged though I am for that exhaustive answer, my question had to do with the EU’s present borders with the candidate countries, with their future eastern borders with the states of the CIS, and more specifically with the programmes that are meant to keep in check the prostitution that is prevalent there. What is currently going on in the area where the Czech Republic borders on Bavaria is this: most of the victims and many of the culprits are from further to the east, that is, from Russia and Romania, states that are not yet due to join us. The scene of the crime is generally in the Czech Republic, which is an accession country, and the customers, those who spend the money, are, lamentably enough, mainly from the present EU – from Germany, in fact, so this is a cross-border problem. What I am specifically interested in is what is being done in the border regions to sort out the great deal of prostitution that is going on there.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Clegg has already expressed his broad support, on behalf of the , for the Commission’s proposals, and his concern about certain specific aspects relating to the United States, as has just been mentioned. I would like to highlight the concern about an aspect which appears in the ’s original motion for a resolution, whose first section refers to the need to reject any political interference in the Commission’s competition policy. If we apply this to the issue in question, the telecommunications sector, it is a well-founded concern given the cases which arose in Spain, a few months ago, involving the merger of Telefónica with a Dutch company, in Portugal and in other sectors in France. It worries us that there is still government interference in the actions of companies who are seeking appropriate dimensions and competitiveness at a European level. We therefore support the Commission’s proposals and we would like to draw attention to this aspect.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, you told us that repair costs more than prevention. That is preaching to the converted. Prevention is precisely what we are talking about here. On presenting Forest Focus, the Commission is reducing its economic contribution from EUR 18 million to EUR 13 million, saying that the missing 5 million has been transferred to the Regulation on Rural Development; but in the end it has had to tell us that this transfer has not taken place, which leads us to think that the money has been lost along the way. As Mr Martin and many of my colleagues have said, and I am not going to repeat it, from a political point of view it is not acceptable that the budget set for the only regulation dedicated exclusively to the protection of forests, to pollution and to fires is being reduced by EUR 5 million, and to say that we are now going to combat fires, leaving out prevention, we are going to study pollution, increase biodiversity and also study carbon. We cannot do many more things with much less money, because 5 million out of EUR 18 million is a very significant percentage. I would prefer it if we did not have to talk about or lament or express solidarity with the families of the people lost in these fires, nor the landscapes, homes and everything else that has disappeared, but I believe it is a miserly policy on the part of the Commissioner responsible for the environment to try to reduce the only funds we have had and to say that they have been transferred to rural development when, firstly, the countries have not had any opportunity to introduce these funds into their programmes and, secondly, the funds are not even in rural development. Thank you, Commissioner. I would ask you to communicate what I have said to Commissioner Wallström, so that at second reading we can approve the amendments which Parliament has already approved.

Political group: PPE-DE