GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, last month we celebrated Europe Day. Central to this was Robert Schuman’s speech of 9 May 1950. A lot has changed since then, but Robert Schuman’s and Jean Monnet’s basic axiom to the effect that a lasting peace is created by weaving peoples and nations together in mutually enriching dependence is still valid. Security is created through cooperation pure and simple, as well as through integration and enlargement. Schuman began his speech with these words: ‘World peace cannot be preserved without constructive efforts to combat impending dangers’. This far-sighted approach permeates the Socialist Group’s vision of Europe’s foreign and security policy and is also a persistent theme in Mrs Lalumière’s report on the eve of Feira, a report which our Group supports wholeheartedly. For Social Democrats like ourselves, there are two complementary dimensions to the challenge of security policy in the twenty-first century. The first is the global dimension, and the second is the purely European dimension. Seen in a global perspective, security is clearly indivisible. We share the same planet and the same fate. In today’s globalised world following the end of the cold war, poverty and exclusion stand out as the main enemies of peace and democracy. No military arsenals and no new nuclear arms race can provide security against the resentment of the poor. Generous, fair and far-sighted aid, together with a trade policy which attacks the causes of poverty and insecurity must therefore be an integral part of our foreign and security policy. In the same way, we must look at conflict prevention and crisis management in the context of our new European security policy. We are, of course, loyal to the decisions taken in Helsinki. We should constructively develop the military capacity which the war in Kosovo, in particular, has necessarily brought about. The headline goals which have been established are important and must be implemented in full, without delay and without exception. At the same time, we must, however, oppose those who wish to exaggerate our military capacity and role. We should accept increased responsibility for security on our own continent, but we should not take the place of NATO or create an embryonic form of permanent and independent European defence. Such ambitions are pure fantasy and mere tilting at windmills. A policy on conflict prevention is missing from our arsenal. We must therefore actively support the proposals tabled by Commissioner Patten and also by the Council, together with the proposals in Mrs Lalumière’s report.

Political group: PSE
I voted to approve the Accession Treaties only under protest and out of solidarity with my future colleagues. Despite the Commission's warnings and reproaches during the course of the negotiations, the Council has insisted on committing what is without doubt a breach of the law. The Council's controversial retention of Annex XV in the Accession Treaty and consequent wholly unilateral alteration of the 2004-2006 financial framework amounts to a breach of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the European Parliament and the Council. By doing this, it has trodden Parliament's budgetary rights underfoot. At the same time, it has forced upon Parliament the choice between fighting for its rights and approving the enlargement treaties. Such behaviour by the Council puts an end to our loyal cooperation with it. - Wiersma (A5-0098/2003) recommenda-tion

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am very surprised about the statement by Mr Barón Crespo, for whom I otherwise have the highest regard, in which he mentions our group in the same breath as the no-confidence motion against the Commission. I would like here to state that I am severely critical of the fact that Commission President Romano Prodi is obviously too involved in Italian domestic politics to bother with his tasks as President of the Commission. (Applause) This is still no reason, however, for us now to consider a vote of no confidence, precisely because we have such excellent members of the Commission as the Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio, who is here today. (Applause) So our group has absolutely nothing to do with the no-confidence motion, Mr Barón Crespo. I really ask that you forget about the elections for a bit (Laughter) and not look for arguments that are simply not there. That is the first point. Secondly, Mr Barón Crespo – and I would like once again to express my high regard for him – has said that we should not deliberate or vote on Eurostat and a dismissal. The Parliament decided to do so yesterday. Mr Barón Crespo, we jointly have that right, that is the basis of our work, of the European Union, and for that reason I recommend that we proceed in the way that we decided to yesterday. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
It is our view that all immigrant workers living and working in any European Union country must have the same rights and freedoms, particularly the freedom of movement, as European Union nationals. Despite the report’s limitations in this respect and although we do not agree with the entire text, we did vote for the report because the measures it recommends represent progress in relation to the current deplorable situation of immigrant workers and migrant workers who are European Union nationals. I would add that the extreme right’s fiercely racist opposition to this report confirms our views in this direction.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Immediately after Helsinki, the Communist Party of Greece stated that the procedure for integrating Cyprus into the EU was being used as a lever to bring about a definitive partition of Cyprus. I mention this in order to emphasise that the course of events was prescribed from the moment resolving the Cyprus problem became expedient and in the interests of the ΕU rather than of the Cypriot people. Indeed, how could the results of the 1974 Turkish invasion and occupation be reversed when the EU never addressed the Cyprus problem as such, never made withdrawal from the occupation of Cyprus a precondition to the integration of Turkey? How could a fair solution be obtained with the involvement of the EU and the USA when what happened in 1974 is daily practice nowadays on the part of the imperialist powers in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine? How could the UN Secretary General express something different from the international coalition of forces, by which we mean the new imperialist order? It is therefore no paradox that the Annan plan tramples over earlier UN resolutions and twin-community agreements, establishing a peculiar, so-called confederation of a state, unique in the annals of international law and partitioned under a foreign protectorate. The Communist Party of Greece expresses its undivided solidarity with the entire Cypriot nation. We call on you to do likewise and to stop this blatant coercion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the Commission for this proposal for a directive on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in paints and varnishes. It is an extremely sound proposal which will entail a considerable improvement where such emissions are concerned. We just heard Commissioner Wallström describe the necessity for improving air quality. Better air also means a better environment, which in turn means better health. The health aspect automatically has a role to play in this connection, then. I wish to thank Mr Lisi for the groundwork he has done. Thank you, too, to my colleagues in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. We had an extremely good vote in the committee, which improved the proposal for a directive. I am, for example, pleased that we adopted an amendment to the effect that paints and varnishes should not contain substances classified as carcinogens, mutagens or substances toxic to reproduction. As it is, as many as 84 amendments have been tabled in the Chamber, and I myself take responsibility for a number of them. Together with Mr Meijer from the Confederal Group of the , I have, for example, tabled Amendments Nos 62-77, dealing with limit values. We think that the Commission has settled for too low a level when it comes to achieving these reduction targets. According to the Decopaint report, to which the Commission too refers, there are two alternatives. I wonder why the Commission chose to settle for limit values higher than those in both these alternatives. My Amendments Nos 79 and 81 are based upon the assumption that we shall see a continued trend towards paints with ever lower contents of volatile organic compounds. This directive should also, therefore, be reviewed in 2008 in order for it to be possible to reduce the limit values further. I also wish to mention the issue of the boiling point. I believe that the discussions conducted by the industry in recent days really do not serve their purpose. We think that the definition based upon a boiling point of 280 degrees – and which is also clearly recommended in the Decopaint report – should apply, because it gives consumers a precise definition.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, allow me first of all to thank the rapporteur for an excellent piece of work. As shadow rapporteur, it is always a pleasure to engage in constructive dialogue with a rapporteur receptive to the proposals and points of view presented. It is naturally important to take account of the interests of air passengers in this issue. I therefore think that the final outcome of the report is entirely positive. A not insignificant proportion of the amendments adopted by the Committee come from the Group, and these have strengthened the position of passengers. We already have a regulation establishing the limits of air carriers’ liability to pay damages in the event of death and bodily injury. That was a very important step in view of the level of damages which was laid down by the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and which was definitely on the low side. The aim of the present proposal is to adapt the EU rules to the new Montreal Convention which will hopefully come into force at the end of 2002. When the revised Regulation comes into force, European air passengers will be given significantly better protection. When they fly with foreign carriers, they may, however, still be confronted by the fact that such carriers have a limited liability to pay damages under the Warsaw Convention because the latter will continue to apply to those countries which have not ratified the Montreal Convention. As a result, we are faced with the difficulty that always arises in connection with international conventions, in that we shall have two overlapping systems for a transitional period. It is therefore of the greatest importance for our Member States to ratify the Montreal Convention as soon as is reasonably possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I feel compelled to respond to the things that have been said in this House with regard to the position of the Group of the on this issue. Mr Schmitt, there is absolute agreement in my group that the three different groups of people arriving in the Union should be dealt with differently. So much so that we supported the Wiebenga report with regard to the first group that you mentioned, with a view to creating regulations on reception for temporary refugees, who come in massive numbers fleeing from conflict, which is something the European Peoples’ Party did not do. With regard to asylum and refuge, we agree that we should treat asylum seekers as a group of people seeking protection and who want to enter for humanitarian reasons on an equal basis with those seeking reunification with their families. The problem is, Mr Schmitt, that my group cannot renounce, despite what you claim Mr Shily, the German Interior Minister, says, the idea that refugees are individuals and that each case must be treated individually in accordance with personal circumstances and not nationality, as well as the safe non-EU country they have reached, for example. A non-EU country may be safe for one individual but not for another, but do not force me to give examples, since these are always odious. We cannot relinquish this idea and furthermore, at a time when the European Union is going to produce the first harmonised legislation on refugees, we want to send a clear signal that we are in favour of this common legislation but not in order to reduce levels of protection and rights of asylum seekers, a field in which the European Union has been an historic example and has greatly assisted organisations such as the UNHCR and others. With regard to the issue of asylum and immigration, there is no doubt that we agree that immigrants are not refugees. But the problem is that we lack the courage to create clear immigration laws, which would allow the legal entry of people which our society and our labour market can absorb, without destroying the asylum system in the process, which has been the only open door for many years. We are in absolute agreement on this. This is our position and it seems very clear to me.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, much attention has been given to the matter we are working on today. We have interviewed many experts and made many visits. We have conferred with parliamentary colleagues at home and abroad, from both Member States and candidate countries. There have been many private conversations, and after all this input I have formed a completely personal opinion on this matter, which is both complex and ethically charged. I should like to note that I certainly respect every judgment conscientiously arrived at. A division into left or right, conservative or modern, is not relevant here. Consequently I cannot permit my view or that of other colleagues to be branded as fundamentalist in this House, as has just happened. Mr President, my view and voting behaviour are largely in accordance with what has been agreed in our group. I differ on one point: I am in favour of the use of residual embryos from IVF, but wish to limit the deliberate creation of extra embryos. I am opposed to the blocking off of avenues potentially offered by therapeutic cloning for one day curing such diseases as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Reproductive cloning has never been at issue and an absolute international ban is called for. I reject the production of embryos solely for research. In my view, we are dealing with a problem of definitions in the case of therapeutic cloning. Is it permissible for the nucleus of an ovum of mine, combined with a skin cell, to serve at some point in the future to make a heart cell for me? Finally, patent law is inadequate: the inviolability of the human body is established, but the legislation is ambiguous and as a result patents are granted that are not in the service of mankind or of possible cures. I would therefore ask my D66 and VVD colleagues who voted differently in the discussion of the report, to support our group on this point too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sorry to have to do something which I would not normally do, i.e. to explain a proposed amendment here. Mr de Clercq has raised the issue and I must take a stand. We have agreed on the text as it is printed. In it, we call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied areas of Lebanon. We agreed on the text as it stands. Now the Liberals and perhaps others in the House want to delete this sentence calling on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. That is their right, but we cannot say that we have agreed on it. We agreed on the text as it stands.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too think it is a wise decision and it shows that it is right that there be flexibility in this rule. It is an option open to the President after consulting the chair of the committee responsible, to be used when it will be useful and not to be used when it will not be useful. The proceedings today have shown that, even when it is not used, it serves a purpose in putting on pressure for amendments to be withdrawn, thereby saving the rest of us a lot of time later in plenary.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I can say that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which has been asked for its opinion, widely supported the proposals put forward by the European Commission. In a series of amendments which were passed on to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Commission was careful to extend the length of contracts, for which operators apply in response to calls for tender. The Commission also tabled a number of amendments to increase the content of management contracts set out in the Commission regulation, particularly under the social chapter. Lastly, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs supports the idea that we must ensure that the objectives of sustainable transport are taken into consideration in the management contracts and this is duly taken into account by the competent authorities, particularly with regard to the integration and interoperability between bus transport, which is precisely the subject of our debate, and other types of transport. Nonetheless, the Committee regrets that this proposal for a regulation was presented before a discussion could be held. With regard to rail issues, the second railway package and also services of general interest, which we discussed this morning, it would clearly have been more logical to first adopt a framework directive on services of general interest before having to discuss the same services of general interest on a sector-by-sector, directive-by-directive basis.

Political group: Verts-ALE
You said that the precautionary principle should not be used as a disguised trade barrier. Is the understanding of this point the same on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean? I think we are going to have problems particularly with hormone-treated beef and genetically modified crops. Will the Americans take the same view of this point as we do?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, almost thirty years ago it was decided to replace the system of revenues then in force, based on the contribution of the Member States, with a system of own resources. The importance of this decision is obvious. Now that three decades have passed, the weaknesses of the current system are only too well known. It is not adequate and it is not simple, logical, transparent or fair. It is therefore unsustainable. It is the result of successive, confused judgements which have been forced by the needs, pressures and interests of those who, in different contexts and historical periods, have had the ability to protect them. The perverse relationship between the contribution from each Member State and its relative ability to guarantee it is unacceptable. The United Kingdom’s system of positive discrimination, based on the destructive concept of fair return is unjustifiable. The idea of investing the European Union with own resources has, for this reason, remained a good intention. Even now, instead of introducing urgently needed reform, the Berlin Council has limited itself to a new raft of small judgements that have resulted from major commitments. To insist on the current logic of expenditure in which the consequences of the common agricultural policy are increased, which, apart from jeopardising any aim for fairness which has been accepted as a principle of the Treaties, is political in name only. To insist on the system of revenues currently in force, the product of different, contradicting interests, is irreparably incompatible with the desire to develop the project of enlargement of our geographical area. All of this has been studied, known and discussed for far too long. We are not even talking about disproportionate resources. This is a sum that corresponds, in the Council’s proposal for Budget 2000, to only 1.10% of the Community’s GNP and this year could reach 1.27%. This is a fundamental issue. The success of the European Union’s pledge before its citizens and the world depends on our ability to show that we are facing up to the necessary reform. I know that this is a complex issue, as I know what a utopian idea it would be to try to start afresh. The past cannot be erased and has produced many good things. But to continue postponing decisions on this matter is to postpone much more than a difficult decision on the European Union financing system. It would affect a project in which I consciously maintain confidence, as do so many of our fellow citizens, aware as I am of its problems and its potential. Only a new approach to the issue of own resources which does not increase the fiscal burden on taxpayers, one which makes the system more transparent, simpler and more rational can provide the European Union with equitable conditions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Milk is a product of strategic importance to the economy of the Azores, due to the economic activity and jobs that it creates, accounting for 80% of regional gross agricultural product and 25% of national milk production and because it provides income for around 5 000 highly productive milk producers. Since the 1999/2000 season, the level of production has reached 500 000 tonnes, and even attained around 523 000 tonnes in the 2002/2003 season, which would have led, if the derogations had not been secured, to producers having to pay supplementary levies for exceeding their quota, causing many to go bankrupt. Given the specific characteristics of the Azores, the milk quota for this area needs to be increased, particularly because there are no viable economic alternatives in this outlying region. The agreement reached at the Luxembourg Agriculture Council of 26 June 2003 still fails to meet the Azores’ needs. The additional quota of 50 000 tonnes from 2005/2006 to 2014/2015 and the derogation from the 23 000-tonne exemption threshold for supplementary levies are not enough. The fairest thing to do would be to turn this exemption into a quota and guarantee its permanence. The Portuguese Government acknowledged the need to increase the quota by 100 000 tonnes, but deplorably accepted considerably less.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty'. Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!

Political group: Verts-ALE