GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, this directive and this proposal have their own personality. We began with the rapporteur’s positions, which gradually changed and which at the moment are being transformed by Parliament’s vote. I must firstly congratulate the rapporteur on doing his job, which is to defend the position of Parliament and not his initial position. Furthermore, these negotiations have helped us to understand that Parliament must respect the Commission’s exclusive powers of legislative initiative. Some Members have tried to introduce proposals, but this has not been possible, which I believe is positive, because we must all respect everybody else’s role. This directive attempts to open up a European area of transport, which is absolutely essential, because at the moment the State areas are of no use to us. This directive, with its proposal to open up the market, attempts to stimulate a mode of transport which is very positive in terms of its relationship with the environment. Until now, maritime transport, apart from the transport of oil and dangerous goods, has been secondary, but it provides the possibility of improving European transport from the point of view of the environment, congestion and safety. We have already had experience of access to the market in relation to other means of transport and there have been no dramas or traumas; therefore, what there has been is an increase in their management capacity. It is true that, at the moment, with the proposals in the directive, we are not talking about reducing the number of jobs in ports. We are talking about increasing the number of workers in ports while making them more efficient. We must also forget the idea that liberalisation and lack of safety go hand in hand. Aviation is a mode of transport in which safety is vital and nobody can claim that its liberalisation reduces safety. Let us not forget, Mr President, that Parliament has made a great effort to bring its position closer to yours. In conciliation you must now reciprocate in relation to self-loading and pilotage.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my views involve some important distinctions. For example, I see the enhancement of regional and local employment initiatives and the greater emphasis on equal opportunities for women in employment policy as being positive, although I believe that Mrs Theorin’s criticism in this respect is still valid. Nevertheless, I think that the basic positions are inadequate. Each one of us has too many unemployed people amongst his or her constituents. We should have rejected that old chestnut put forward by the Commission that the unemployed ought to be encouraged, by deregulating the labour market and imposing social constraints, to look for work or seek assistance under employment policy measures. I believe that the causes of mass unemployment are essentially structural and socio-political. Sweeping references to service sector jobs in the USA make the picture quite clear: everyone knows that these are mainly underpaid jobs with no social security net. Anyone who wants to follow this US model is accepting or even participating in the destruction of the welfare state in Europe. I also regret that it has become fashionable to ignore macroeconomic analysis. As long as financial markets are more lucrative than investing in business, then the problem of unemployment will no doubt remain unsolved. I therefore urge you, ladies and gentlemen, to support the amendment that refers to this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, by deciding not to extend the embargo on the sale of arms to Indonesia, the Council of Ministers has this month adopted a position contrary to the one recommended by Parliament last month on the basis of a broad consensus. The situation in the Moluccas, clearly set out in the joint motion for a resolution, is evidence that the reasons for the embargo have not changed, which is why Parliament’s position remains the same. As the current Indonesian Government itself decided a month ago, after the free elections, to be ruled by the values of democracy, including respect for human rights, it deserves the appreciation and solidarity of the international community. The situation in the Moluccas, which is not an isolated case in Indonesia, requires caution and discretion in the expression of this solidarity. This situation has arisen in particular due to the internal migration policy promoted by the Suharto military dictatorship with which the current actions of the Indonesian armed forces are associated. These actions represent a repetition of the worst events in East Timor, as if nothing had changed in the country. I therefore support the necessary reinforcement of international cooperation, mainly through humanitarian aid to Indonesia and assistance with respective development. In this way we can demonstrate our appreciation of the democratic nature of the current government, thereby helping to increase its authority. I am against the sale of arms to armed forces which have yet to understand their position in a rule of law which should bring them under the control of the government. Given the circumstances, the right signal would be sent by extending the embargo on the sale of arms to Indonesia.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, most people would now say that they want the European Union to play a stronger role in world affairs, but they appear sometimes to be uncertain as to the ways and means. This evening, in the splendid Carnero González report, we have part of the answer. The acquisition of an international legal personality would be a powerful instrument for the Union. First, it will raise its international profile. Second, by giving the Union more respectability, it should encourage us to act more responsibly. It will open the door for a more proactive part for the Union inside the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank. It will consolidate our role and the functions of the Commission in the field of trade and the environment. But international legal personality cannot simply be asserted unilaterally. It must be earned if it is to win recognition under international law. What will assist us in winning this acceptance is for the Union itself to become a contracting party to the Council of Europe's Convention – a move that will complement the development of our own fundamental rights regime funded on the Charter. This report prepares those of us in the Convention to take the lead. We are grateful to the rapporteur for his sterling work.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I now wish to ask the Bureau the following question: in the resolution on the issue we will shortly be voting on, concerning company relocations, the Portuguese version of item 8 is different to all of the other language versions. I believe that item 8 of the Portuguese-language version is wrong and item 8 of the versions in French, Spanish, English, etc. is correct. I would therefore ask the Bureau to ensure that this item is corrected and to inform the plenary that this is done before the vote takes place.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I thought that Mr Herzog would present the oral amendment in his text. It will then read: ...'welcome the bank's commitment to improved transparency and efficiency of its global loans and its response to critical questions regarding these instruments'. That will be the first line. It is the . Sorry, I am mixing it up with another report. (The House gave its assent to the tabling of the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0370/2002) by Mrs Ieke van den Burg, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the rules on prudential supervision in the European Union [2002/2061(INI)] Regarding Amendment No 2

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this month, for the second time in a short space of time, after the failure of the Italian Presidency in December, and under Irish leadership, the Heads of Government are facing a choice that is crucial to the European Union's future. The European Council in Italy looked foolish when it failed to dispose of the narrow-minded national interest and to opt for a more democratic, efficient and transparent Europe. Many wonder whether the Council will make the same mistake again. Fortunately, the Irish Presidency has already done a great deal of work over the past couple of months. There is willingness to reach agreement; very tentatively, things are moving in Europe. I would urge the Irish Presidency to tread carefully, for another failure would be disastrous for the confidence among the European electorate as it heads for the ballot boxes in June. If the Heads of Government drop another clanger this time, it will be impossible to convince the European electorate of Europe's power. In this light, it is preferable to wait a little longer than not to have a constitution at all. I would stress here once again that the text should actually benefit Europe. Let us not produce another insignificant document, as happened at the meeting of Heads of Government in Nice in 2000. The European Convention's draft Constitution was good news for Europe and its citizens. It provides for a more democratic, understandable and, above all, decisive Europe. That is why we should adhere to those proposals as closely as possible, without detracting from the rights of the European Parliament, without resorting to back-room politics and without any loss of transparency. The idea of one Commissioner per country should be accepted, the defence agreement of Naples must be utilised, and social Europe must be reinforced. I would therefore urge the Heads of Government, this time round, to produce a meaningful document, rather than an insignificant one. I take the view that if a constitution is not forthcoming, the Heads of Government will throw Europe into crisis, further enlargement will be made impossible and the financial problems will become insoluble. For them and for Europe, this is a decisive moment. The Irish Presidency is working in a way that instils much confidence in this House, and I wish it every success.

Political group: PSE
A glance at the troubled history of Europe, full of internecine wars between Europeans, must help us to appreciate the significance of today’s vote in the House on the report on enlargement of the European Union. This enlargement of the Union is best understood as the reunification of the peoples of our continent. At long last all Europeans are coming together to share common fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, solidarity and respect for human rights and the environment. As Members of the European Parliament we should rejoice in having played a part in this process, and commit ourselves to ensuring its success. Nonetheless, we must regret that the budget allocated to this enlargement is inadequate for the scale of the project and for our common future. It is derisory. I would recall for reference that between 1948 and 1951 the United States contributed the equivalent of EUR 97 billion to help Western Europe recover from the devastation caused by war. That amounted to 1.5% of the GDP of the United States. Between 1990 and 1999 EUR 600 billion was invested to finance recovery in the former East Germany. The European Council is only prepared to allocate 0.15% of the Union’s GDP to enlargement. From now on we must demonstrate solidarity as we respond to continental challenges of this kind. It is worth bearing in mind that our future will henceforth be inextricably linked to that of our new friends and neighbours, and that it is up to us to make that future a reality.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as agreed with my group and in line with the approach that I outlined before the first ballot, I am withdrawing my candidacy and I urge all the Members who voted for me, whom I would like to thank, to now vote for Mr David Martin. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
It is deplorable that the vested interests of America and the European Union have allowed this issue to be pushed off the international agenda and turned into an internal Russian issue, which it clearly is not. During the Irish presidency, I would like to see the Council give support to the Irish, because in the national parliament the European Affairs Committee has actually appointed a rapporteur on Russia to look at the issue of Chechnya. During the Irish presidency there will be two meetings, the first in Dublin, during the visit by the Foreign Minister, the second the EU-Russia summit to be held in May. The Council needs to put strong pressure on the European Union. We need the EU to push at Council level for unfettered international human rights monitoring of Chechnya. This issue has to be put back on the international agenda. It is completely unacceptable that over 150 000 people have died over the last decade and appalling human rights abuses are taking place. People are willing to turn a blind eye to what is going on in the interests of oil and resources.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Swedish want a solution to be found for the planned European Constitution that takes account of the following considerations, among others: 1) that the EU not be given the right to tax our incomes and pensions; 2) that the rotating Presidency of the Council continue and that a newly established, centralised office such as that of EU President not be created; 3) that Europe’s biblical and Judaeo-Christian heritage be recognised in the Preamble as an historical fact concerning our spiritual heritage, in the same way as humanism is specified as the only named philosophical current; 4) that Article 51 remain, stating that the EU must conduct a regular dialogue with churches and other religious communities and associations; 5) that each Member State be entitled to a Commissioner with full voting rights; 6) that, in the future too, defence issues be dealt with on the basis of the principle of unanimity; 7) that the ambiguous clauses concerning the passerelle and transitional mechanisms be removed; these, it is proposed, should give Heads of State or Government in the Council the right unanimously to extend the EU’s legislative powers at the national parliaments’ expense and to abandon the right of veto/principle of unanimity in favour of majority decision-making – and this without each country’s parliament being required to give its approval.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the case of Mr Pacheco Pereira has been carefully examined by the Legal Affairs Committee: the recommendation, which was approved and which is tabled before the House today, is not to reject the request for waiver of Parliamentary immunity. The reasons and justifications for this are given in Mr MacCormick’s excellent report, and the grounds are the following: influences deriving from nationality or affiliation to a particular party cannot, and must not, be permitted; the legal basis must be sound and final; immunity is not a Member’s personal privilege but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members in relation to other authorities; the date of the alleged deed and the personal desire of the interested party to relinquish their immunity are of no importance. The reference made in the Protocol to national legislation does not mean that the European Parliament is being passed over but is in connection with the procedure, while every Parliament – including, in the case in point, the European Parliament – preserves its authority in its autonomous decisions. When all is said and done, Mr Pacheco Pereira was performing a political activity and cannot therefore be considered responsible for any crime. That is the position of the European People’s Party. We would also like to point out that, if Mr Pacheco Pereira had been Italian, proceedings would have been brought against him without the European Parliament knowing anything about it. The Italian judiciary does not ask for authorisation when the person in question is a Member of the European Parliament and ignores every principle of the respect due to this institution. Some Members of Parliament have already been taken to court during this parliamentary term without a request being put forward for waiver of parliamentary immunity. Personally, I was not able to intervene to condemn these actions in that it concerned members of my own party who have always been political targets, and my involvement would therefore have appeared exploitative. However, the incident has been repeated again, and this time, although the Member concerned is a member of the European People’s Party, he is not from the same political party or persuasion as I am in Italy. Proceedings were brought against Mr Cocilovo without Parliament being informed, indeed in contempt of Parliament. This is an extremely serious matter, Madam President, that you cannot ignore. The autonomy of the European Parliament is at stake!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, as the Commissioner and President-in-Office have pointed out, we are dealing here not with a country which is far flung from Europe, but with a candidate country with a whole host of serious problems. It has economic problems which people are trying to resolve – and good luck to them – and we in the European Union shall support the reforms. To all intents and purposes, Turkey is still both unwilling and unable to reform the political system – as the president of the republic and the military have both pointed out. Hardly any progress whatsoever has been made on the so-called Kurdish question, i.e. the question of minorities, and the situation in the prisons is horrendous. You would think that a government with so many problems would at least try to resolve the most pressing and urgent problems. I recently made a short visit to Turkey with Mr Cohn-Bendit. I personally was only there very briefly, but it was time enough to see that this is a dialogue between two people who are either hard of hearing or stone deaf; I refer to the organisers of the hunger strike on the one hand, who should end or at least suspend the hunger strike, and the Turkish government on the other. If the European Parliament delegation just announced is to make any sense or have any chance of success, then both sides need to be willing to find a compromise or, at the very least, to stop what they are doing. We all know that reform is needed in the Turkish prisons. But the various proposals made – and this is a mild criticism of the work of the Council of Europe and its anti-torture committee – must not lose sight of the underlying problem. Turkey is a country which, because of its laws, still generates a lot of political prisoners; that is the problem. There are not so many political prisoners because there are so many assassination attempts, there are so many political prisoners because the laws in Turkey make political prisoners out of so many people – and that should be the starting point. Secondly, even where people become prisoners or political prisoners as the result of terrorist activities – which I do not condone but which I cannot deny – solitary confinement must be abolished or at least reduced to what is humanly bearable. The Commissioner announced a series of measures which Turkey intends to implement. I spoke with the Turkish justice minister in January and these issues were already being discussed. But the point with the monitoring system, with Article 16 and with the system of a judge to oversee how sentences are executed in Turkey is, how is all this going to be implemented? The same law can be applied in a humane manner, with due respect for human rights, or it can be applied in a way which tends towards isolation and solitary confinement. I call on Turkey to give us, the European Parliament, and Europe a chance to help it overcome this problem, but Turkey must also show willing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I congratulate all the rapporteurs for their work on these reports. They have become one of the EU's top priorities. Their aim to adopt existing policies and legislation and turn them into global strategies is commendable. However, for this to take place, all Member States need to come together to ensure universally interactive public services, hopefully thereby facilitating the information society and guaranteeing equal public access to information. Mr Paasilinna's action plan has very laudable aims in incorporating eGovernment, eLearning, eHealth and eBusiness. The objective of creating a competitive economy based on information will have a significant impact on growth, productivity, employment and social cohesion in Europe. It is one that I support wholeheartedly and has been much heralded as a main EU priority. However, we need to recognise that progress in this area has been far too slow. We need to make a much bigger impact than we have to date. We need to explore how we can have greater participation and ensure that we do not have a two-speed Europe nor an information underclass. I very much support what Mr Paasilinna said. Concerning Mr Van Velzen's report on the re-use of public information, this can be a critical and very important economic driver, creating added value products and services and new prosperity for businesses, especially SMEs. In my area, the West Midlands, many SMEs are looking for this kind of information. However, as Mr Van Velzen said, we need to eliminate the obstacles and create a level playing field across the Union. I have worked in the public sector for a considerable length of time. I am concerned about placing an unreasonable burden on public bodies. Therefore I would urge that there be a provision for a reasonable return on investment. We face a dilemma as, on the one hand, we need to encourage businesses and on the other hand, businesses want information at little or no cost. We have to ensure that these costs do not fall at the door of the public bodies who have an obligation to produce, but have limited scope for manoeuvrability. I also very much support what Mrs Read said on this and would go along with her.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the 2002 EU Budget, amounting to EUR 51 billion, appears at first sight to be balanced and straightforward. The increase of 5% over the outgoings of the Budget year 2001 corresponds to the Berlin agricultural guidelines. That is not only good but also inevitable, as no other policy is as thoroughly submitted to Community methods as agricultural policy. I note with particular concern, however, that this great chunk of agricultural expenditure is increasingly the object of covetous desires on the part of not a few politicians who see it as a sort of disposable object which can be moved around at will. If this intention is to be countered, the Financial Perspective will have to be qualified by the Commission, any kind of speculation eliminated and the across-the-board cuts that are always being sought in the agricultural budget not in fact implemented. The appearance of foot-and-mouth disease eleven months ago has meant a very unbalanced situation in animal husbandry, especially as regards food safety, animal protection and the internal market. Distorted competition in markets leads to the loss of jobs and income. Pricing is becoming chaotic and nobody can explain why. So I wish to advocate a temporary increase in the financial allocation to the market organisation for animal husbandry. I urge that the so-called interim balance sheet of Agenda 2000 should not be put off simply to do a favour for a particular country. I urge moreover that the reserve should be kept until an explanation is given of the contradiction by which we were talking about EUR 1 billion last year and only EUR 400 million now.

Political group: GUE-NGL