GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I voted against the report, which was adopted by 379 ‘yes’ votes to 27 ‘no’ votes and 57 abstentions. The committee believes that a common institutional policy is needed for harmonising European research and higher education, together with significantly stronger support by the EU for the universities. In view of the principle of subsidiarity and the idea of academic freedom, I can support neither the proposals to establish ‘a European University Seat’ nor the demand for a special ‘European University of Culture’. I find it disquieting that the Commission is being given the task of preparing a Green Paper on the European higher education area. I also find it hard to understand why it is specifically the EU and the Commission that are to assess the quality of education, especially access to study loans and grants, hardship allowances, university residences and, in particular, student health care. As a Swedish Christian Democrat Member of the European Parliament, I find it perturbing that the report contains demands and requests covering a long list of areas that the universities themselves, or at least the Member States, should be allowed to decide about, without interference by the EU. This infringes academic freedom and the principle of subsidiarity. In particular, there is dubious wording in the report to the effect that ‘convergence and cohesion’ among European universities should be boosted. - Stenzel report (A5-0226/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not know whether Mr Berlusconi will listen to me and take up the invitation I made to him just now in my last explanation of vote, but I must say that Mr Prodi, the President of the European Commission, has listened to my sister, Anna Maria Fatuzzo, concerning this document. Why, you may ask. While talking to my sister Anna Maria about the European Community budget yesterday in Rome, she said to me, ‘As I see it, you ought to have more funds in your budget. Europe ought to have more money.’ You will not believe it, Mr President, but, the next day, all the papers in Italy – and I think all over Europe – reported the declaration by President Prodi calling for a tax, paid specifically by the citizens, called a ‘tax for Europe’: not an extra tax – which is something I would not agree with – but for European funds to be financed by means of a quota of the taxes paid by European citizens. It might be better if you had my sister Anna Maria come here: perhaps, as she is a woman, she would be listened to more than I am!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I, too, should like to take my turn in congratulating the rapporteur Mr Lamassoure on his recent effort to draft as objective and balanced a report as possible on Turkey's progress towards accession to the European Union, a task rendered all the more difficult by the particular nature of this country's problems in various sectors of special interest to Parliament, such as its record on human and minority rights, its democratic principles, its international conduct, its refusal to admit to tragic historic events and so on. Having said which, I think that, thanks to certain amendments approved by the rapporteur and despite certain other amendments dictated by the policy of expediency, the final report which has taken shape is generally acceptable, even to the official Turkish side. And, of course, we all know what that means, we just have to make allowances for the usual abusive response by the Turkish foreign secretary towards the honourable Mr Poos and his report, which is seen as negative towards Turkey. So all that remains is to ascertain the extent to which Turkey will basically respond to the good will and to the spirit which dominates the report, by which I mean the spirit of constructive criticism of numerous Turkish shortcomings, the deliberately indirect reference to the continuing Turkish military occupation of Cyprus, which is unacceptable in a civilised society, the fact that previous Turkish crimes, such as the genocide of the Armenians, have been passed over in silence, contrasting with praise for any minor progress made by Turkey or any circumstantial compliance by Turkey with its contractual obligations, such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Time will tell if Turkey recognises and appreciates these well-meant messages, although I fear that experience to date does not give us cause to be optimistic that we shall soon have a clear response from Turkey to the effect that it really is prepared to prove itself worthy of its candidate status and of integration into the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
The integration of Turkey into the European Union is naturally of considerable interest to European big business, for which the European institutions, including Parliament, are the mouthpieces. The European Parliament could at least take advantage of the parallel desire of the Turkish Government to enter the European Union to demand such basic measures as the abolition of the death penalty, democratic freedoms and the cessation of the repression of the Kurdish people. But, even in these areas, the report uses wordings so toned-down that they mean absolutely nothing. Their avowed concern is not to ‘offend any sensibilities’. The sensibility that must not be offended above all is that of the Turkish government, which bombs, devastates and tortures the Kurdish population. And, whilst the rapporteur of the European Parliament struggles to find a way of highlighting human rights without upsetting the soldiers who trample them underfoot, a Franco-German-Belgian consortium, as was recently reported in the press, is preparing to supply Turkey with a munitions factory. This is infinitely more revealing of the true nature of the relations between European big business and the Turkish dictatorship than all the insipid claptrap on which we are asked to give our opinion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office, the document adopted at the Lisbon Summit is rather abstract, and this may mean that it is not implemented equitably. The policy that has been adopted could conceivably result in a high rate of growth, rivalling that of the United States, but it is unlikely to prevent social exclusion or achieve social cohesion and regional balance. I wish to discuss this problem, which affects fundamental European policies. The European Council ought to be aware that in Europe today, the lowest per capita income and the highest levels of employment exist side by side in the same regions or countries. This requires a European employment policy with its own budget, linked to the Structural Funds policy that the European Council does not want to blindly accept. The Council should also be aware of the fact that there are countries in Europe that are not highly developed, but which are nevertheless prepared for the knowledge economy. They have a high-quality system of technical, university and professional education, but since they do not have the necessary economic development, they are once again seeing their sons and daughters emigrate. These young people, paradoxically, are acting in the same way as computer experts who are trained in India but then go to work in the United States. The Council ought to think about this and work towards a real Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, President of the Council, the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice will make possible the enlargement of the EU. This was also its main task. All fifteen national parliaments in the Member States will ratify the Treaty during 2001, irrespective of how dissatisfied and critical the majority here in the European Parliament are. Consequently, we Swedish feel that item 42 concerning the consent of the European Parliament to the accession Treaties for the candidate countries could be worded so as to be considerably more positive and welcoming. How will item 42 be received in Estonia, in Poland or Cyprus? Neither can my party approve item 25, which opens the way for the introduction of a common European level of taxation – and with decision rules based on a qualified majority. All our historical experience shows that new tax levels and new decision levels for tax deductions lead to higher taxes and less money left for the citizens. Another core issue for the decision-making competence of every national parliament and national government concerns defence policy. Sweden’s Christian Democrat party therefore cannot approve item 34 either, which calls for defence policy to be included in the so-called closer cooperation. At the same time my party wishes to welcome two historical improvements that are proposed in the report. Firstly, it is time to improve citizens’ and the national parliaments’ insight and control of the Council’s work and to make the Council’s meetings open when the Council acts as legislator. We must have this openness if we are to be able to talk about democracy and not just about diplomacy within the EU. In other words, we are in favour of item 11 and Amendment No 68. Finally, the principle of subsidiarity needs to be clarified. We are consequently in favour of the ’s Amendment No 77 concerning definition of the EU’s powers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, not being used to speaking for two consecutive minutes, I am a little worried that I will not manage to fill the time available to me, but I will do my best. Commissioner Solbes, I must express my approval of this report for I feel that the introduction of the euro is one of the most important, key results of the formation of the European Union out of our 15 States. Therefore, preparing the population for practical use of the euro is certainly a positive move. I would like to thank Mr Karas for incorporating a request I made to remove a point from the original measure which stated that adolescents and children must receive good teaching so that they can in turn teach their grandparents. I would hope that, also on this occasion, it will be the grandparents, the elderly, the pensioners – who elected me here to the European Parliament to represent the Pensioner’s Party, no less – who will teach the adolescents. This is quite possible, for I am sure that pensioners – who fill all the markets of the European Union every morning – will be among the first to understand the relationship between the euro and their national currency. I believe I can make a small contribution to this effort: I will have posters put up in the areas in Italy in which I was a candidate for the elections, calling upon the Italian Government to raise the minimum pension to EUR 500. The poster will not specify exactly what this amount corresponds to in Italian lire, and this will force all the citizens to find out the value of EUR 500 in lire. It is a shame that the Government will not accept this proposal, but, at least it will serve to teach the Italian pensioner citizens the value of the euro.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, those who are resisting the notion of increasing the budget in this House should ponder one very stark statistic. Up until August 2003, 92 women in Ireland were killed over the previous 92 months: one woman per month on average dies in Ireland as a result of so-called domestic disputes. That is only the tip of the iceberg, because there are thousands of women and children and young people who are being abused constantly. It behoves us to take this matter seriously. I have no doubt that those who have spoken here regard it as a serious matter. It is important to recognise that DAPHNE has been one of the most successful European projects. It has made a real change to real people's lives in all of the Member States. People are alive today who would not be alive if this programme did not exist. I would appeal to the Members to bear this in mind when they are voting tomorrow in relation to this question of increasing the budget. I cannot accept that it is impossible for us to find an additional EUR 15 million in the vast budget that we will be approving here in a short period of time. It is there: what is missing is the will to search and to find it. Finally, I want to make the point that this issue is not the same as the issue of violence between strangers. This is an issue of violence between people who at some point must have loved each other. It is a question of power and how power is abused. We also have to address that in a serious way if we are to get to the root of this problem.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mrs Fleming on her excellent report, which is better than the Lienemann report on the water framework directive. (NL) The Flemming report deals with water prices and, as Chris Davids has already stated, particularly relates to one very controversial issue, Paragraph 28, in which concern is expressed about the plan by the Aznar government to tap a vast quantity of the northern Spanish river, the Ebro, and to transport this water 1 000 km to southern Spain to cater partly for the tourist industry and partly for agriculture. This plan is detrimental to hundreds of nature reserves in Spain and will also adversely affect the natural habitat of the brown bear and Iberian wolf in the Pyrenees. This gigantic plan will cost EUR 22 billion and Spain wants Europe to contribute EUR 7 billion. Spain should learn that water is a precious commodity and that clean water comes at a price. That is why hotels and farmers use it sparingly. This is standard practice in northern Europe. It is also striking that the Portuguese government – Portugal is, after all, also on the Iberian Peninsula, does pursue a sound water price policy. Under pressure from the Aznar government, a new Amendment No 6 has been tabled by Messrs Flemming, Cox and Davis, precisely to delete reference to this Spanish plan. Does Pat Cox’ application for presidency have anything to do with this by any chance? How else can it be explained that the liberal group is now all of a sudden adopting a different position from that which it adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Fellow Members, I urge you to vote against Amendment No 6 to the Flemming report and to vote for the original paragraph.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have just returned from a trip to the Mexican State of Jalisco, where I was an eyewitness to the devastating effects of a hurricane, particularly in Puerto Vallarta. Fortunately, thanks to the diligence of the local authorities, there have been no human casualties, but the material damage has been very considerable. Mr President, I would be grateful if you could contact the Mexican authorities, the President of the Republic, who was here in our Parliament in May, and the Governor of the State of Jalisco, on behalf of this House, to express our solidarity with them in the face of these events. I would also like to ask the Commission – and I am glad that its Vice-President is here – to study as carefully as possible how the European Union can respond with solidarity in the face of a disaster of this type, whether in the form of emergency aid or of reconstruction and rehabilitation, given that Mexico is a positive and active partner of the European Union and is linked to the Union by means of an Association Agreement and shares our system of values, as demonstrated recently on the issues of the death penalty, the International Criminal Court and the various debates that have been held recently within the United Nations. IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President(1)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, that is not what we agreed on this point in the debates in committee and in the group. The point is, we do not start this sort of procedure unless there is some prospect of obtaining the required majorities further down the line in this difficult procedure to establish human rights violations in Member States. That is why we are opposed to this oral amendment. (The oral amendment was not accepted) Concerning amendment 172 :

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, agriculture will certainly be one of the most sensitive issues at Cancun. When all is said and done, agriculture represents an economic and social market framework the countries of the Southern hemisphere can only dream of. You are mandated to bear the European Union’s great responsibility in this field. I believe the countries of the south should consider the Union their staunchest ally. We must therefore ensure that every person’s fundamental right to have food is not sacrificed on the altar of the god of trade and financial transactions. When it comes down to it, agriculture is an indicator of public welfare the world over, as was stated a moment ago. For the countries of the south, it involves food security, and also the quality of food, water and the soil. It means recognition of regional products, the preservation of the landscape and the sustainable development of rural areas. All this applies to the countries of the north as well as to the countries of the south. Hence, as you said, your mandate should demonstrate there is no selfishness on our part, and that we are willing to eliminate a number of export subsidies. These subsidies are also ruining small farmers within the European Union. The right of peoples and countries to feed themselves with local, healthy products should allow them to take protectionist measures when necessary. If your safeguard clause reflects this right, it will go hand-in-hand with fair-trade, and would be a welcome extension of the ‘Everything but arms’ initiative.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Ladies and gentlemen, a majority of you have come out against the inclusion of any rule on doorstep selling, and with good reason too. The fact is that a separate directive covers these matters, and in the wake of this vote there is no more scope for the inclusion in the present directive of other rules on the same subject. I still say that the amendment should fall.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning I should like, first of all, to thank the Greek Presidency once again for the quality of its collaboration, and congratulate it on the work it has accomplished during a particularly eventful and difficult six months. I should also like to say, following Thessaloniki, how greatly astonished I am at the gulf which has opened up between the enthusiastic media welcome given to the sovereign proposals of Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the numerous criticisms expressed on the sidelines, or in their capital cities, by many Member States. Finally, I should like to say once again that, without a clearly-affirmed social dimension, without any real rules for urban and rural planning across Europe, without any major European public services, without the attributes of a real European citizenship which respects the need for pluralism and the real diversity of our histories, cultures and traditions, yes, without all that, Europe is condemning itself to disillusionment, a disillusionment which will no doubt, in time, prove to be fatal to its very existence. The IGC must therefore improve the draft Convention on these points, so that what is being called the new Treaty of Rome really does open the door to a European Europe, a social Europe and a Europe of citizens.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like to raise an issue which I raised at the previous part-session, that is, the predicament of national airlines in Europe which are currently facing effective annihilation. It is reckoned that approximately EUR 2.5 billion will be lost by the European aviation industry between now and the end of the year, and that some 20 000 jobs will be lost. The Commission response to this, however, has been stony-faced and ideological. It has sought to use the crisis arising from the atrocities of 11 September to shake out the industry to ensure that companies that may or may not have survived in the normal course of economic operations are forced to close down. I would appeal to the Commission to use some political sagacity in its approach to this situation. If the European project does not have the support of the people of Europe it will not succeed, and the Commission is failing to recognise this. Every single job lost in the European aviation industry as a result of the Commission's decision, will create an ever-widening pool of resentment towards Europe, not towards national governments which may be pursuing their own agendas. The Commission must urgently review its approach to the aviation industry. ***

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a process of such historical significance as enlargement can only be approached on the basis of broad consensus. I should like to emphasise that it is essential to arrive at financial consensus. In recent years, the European Union has operated by means of a multiannual agreement as expressed in the so-called financial perspective. This consensual system has resulted in two key achievements. The first is interinstitutional peace, crucial to the preparation of an annual budget. The second is multiannual financial programming, a very useful instrument for budgetary policy. The memory of the difficulties experienced in reaching agreement on the most recent financial perspective in Berlin in 1999 must still be fresh for all Members of the House. This perspective will remain in force until 2006. Members must also be aware of the major difficulties anticipated in connection with drawing up a new financial perspective valid until 2013. By that time, the House will have welcomed new honourable Members and the new Member States will be present in the Council. Consequently the nature of these two budgetary authorities will be very different. The impact of a reformed agricultural policy is one of the variables the new financial consensus will need to take into account. Others will be actual convergence in the areas classed as Objective 1 at the time, and the statistical effect will have an impact on that. Then there is the absorption capacity as far as new Member States are concerned. It will even be necessary to come to a new decision on own resources and the maximum ceiling, currently 1.24%. This will have to be ratified by the Member States. It might therefore be wise to delay negotiation of a new financial perspective until it is possible to ensure complete consensus between the parties. If the present financial framework can cope with enlargement, it should perhaps be retained until an overall assessment of the new financial situation is available.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion the directive on electronic waste should first and foremost serve the environment. We support all amendments that reinforce the environmental objective. However, the environment does not benefit from European rules that are opposed to collective systems. Producers must be individually responsible, that goes without saying. Producers must be encouraged to use eco designs, I agree on that score too. However, individual funding is not the answer. Different makes of hairdryers, electrical toothbrushes, hand blenders, kettles, TV sets etc., hardly differ in terms of recyclability. Individual funding will therefore hardly benefit the environment. Collective systems, however, are less bureaucratic and more practical. There is therefore no reason why collective systems should only be called upon in exceptional circumstances. My second point concerns the waste disposal fee. Why should this not be visible? I can understand the underlying rationale, that environmental costs must be incorporated in the price, but should this be done invisibly at all costs? Would it not be more transparent if it were mentioned? Visibility would certainly enhance awareness on the part of the consumer, and this is of major importance, as consumer cooperation is crucial if we are to achieve the environmental objectives.

Political group: PSE