GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the constitution, let me say that I support every sentence of the speeches made by Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Brok. Those who seek to retreat from the draft produced by the Convention are snubbing their own representatives and showing contempt for the members of the national parliaments and hence the people of their own countries. A total of 84 out of the 105 members of the Convention were representatives of the national parliaments and of the Heads of Government: this demonstrates anew how closely the Member States are involved in the consultation and decision-making processes of the European Union. We want this constitution, we need it, and we demand that an agreement be reached before the first of May. Let me move on to the second point, Lisbon, and say that the Lisbon strategy is the programme for the implementation of the European model of an environmentally and socially responsible market economy. It is not the sole purpose of the spring summit to emphasise vigorously every year that the Lisbon Declaration is still valid, despite the lack of commitment and political will to implement its provisions. This commitment and will are lacking among the national governments, which are equipped with the necessary instruments, but they are also lacking within the Commission, whose preparation and monitoring of the spring summit ranges from sloppy to unsatisfactory. The summit must not degenerate into a talking shop. It must supply straight answers to people’s questions about growth and employment as well as social cohesion. For this reason, I demand a concrete innovation and investment pact for the promotion of competitiveness, growth and social cohesion. This pact should prescribe exactly who should take what action and achieve which targets by when. I expect the Commission to make this pact, along with the adopted projects, the basis of the policy that underlies its financial planning. We need a public discussion, a public debate, on the level of compliance with this innovation and investment pact, analogous to the discussion on observance of the Stability and Growth Pact. Failure to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact obstructs the effort to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and the non-compliant countries – France and Germany, along with Belgium – are also trailing furthest behind in the transposition of the directives on the single market. So let us not play off the one against the other, but rather let us do what we have to do.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think that both the Commissioner and the rapporteur, Mr Gil-Robles, have expressed the substance of this proposal and Mr Ortuondo Larrea has also given various pieces of information that there is no need for me to repeat. This is an assent procedure, which means that Parliament has to adopt the decision in order for it to be obligatory and, in this particular case, Parliament has acted quickly, because the letter from the Council requesting the assent is dated 8 January, and tomorrow, 12 February, one month and five days later, Parliament will give its assent. I think that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has been exemplary in this respect, because the request was put forward so that we had already appointed Mr Gil-Robles in October, in order that when the Council proposal arrived, we could adopt it quickly. I think this is a good example of interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions, almost avant la lettre. From the point of view of content, Mr Ortuondo has pointed out the fact that there are insufficient resources. For example, in the case of the Prestige, we are talking about EUR 5 000 million, which is only one fifth of the amount needed to cover the damage, which is why Mr Ortuondo stressed the need for an additional European fund. I would like to discuss other more legal matters, however. Firstly, according to Community law, it is not the Member States who have competence in this field, but the European Union as a whole. The agreed formula is an intelligent one: the Member States signing in the interests of the Community. We hope that the legal system can be changed so that the European Community itself will be an actual member in order to avoid situations such as this in which particular Member States, such as Austria and Luxembourg, will not be bound by the agreement until 2005. There is also another quite peculiar situation: Denmark is not bound by this decision and it just so happens that it is one of the Member States that is most exposed to this type of accident, due to the extent of its straits. I wonder whether the Danish people are aware that, as a result of this opting-out, damage caused in Denmark by this type of incident will not be covered. I therefore feel that, from now on, although the Commission has acted as swiftly and efficiently as possible, it should initiate progress in this respect. This is not an agreement signed by the Member States in the interests of the Community, but an agreement signed by the European Union in the interests of the whole of the European Union: defending national sovereignty does not benefit the citizens of the European Union, which is what we are concerned with. This would be a fundamental lesson to learn from this type of agreement. We cannot continue to operate with old instruments from former ages, in which the Member States were acting to defend national interests, when we are dealing with collective interests, such as preserving the environment across the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall not take advantage of the situation by taking up more time. I assume that I have about half a minute left and shall wrap my speech up straight away. Naturally, I regret this incident. I have no problem with any sort of demonstration, but people could at least show some respect for Parliament's work, rather than obstruct it, just when we are trying to end the situation as peacefully as possible and stop people from dying. I shall say no more. As far as the problem itself is concerned, this incident just goes to show how difficult things are. I can only appeal on Turkey, as my fellow member Daniel Cohn-Bendit has already done. It would be possible to induce certain people to stop what they are doing if Turkey showed willing on the three points listed by Daniel Cohn-Bendit. I hope that Turkey will, at last, take these efforts seriously and show a little willing and stop being so stubborn, because otherwise no-one in Europe is prepared to tolerate Turkey's behaviour. And it is Turkey's reputation that stands to suffer most.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, blood safety is an important issue for citizens across the European Union. There have been far too many scare stories and accidents across the EU involving blood and blood components. This directive setting standards of quality and safety of collection is absolutely vital. With EU citizens travelling more and more and visiting other EU Member States, we must ensure that when any unfortunate accident happens, whether on holiday or at work, the people are safe in the knowledge about the quality and safety of the transfusion that is going into their bodies. Quality and safety are the watchwords, that is why in principle I support voluntary donation. This has been the topic, as we have heard, of a very heated debate and I feel that the rapporteur has given a strong sense of the feeling that voluntary donations are the preferred option in the EU. However, in the United Kingdom there is a special case to be made. Due to the impact of CJD, known as mad cow disease, we have to import our plasma products from outside the Member State. Most of these products come from the United States of America as there are not enough sources in the other Member States and, sadly, the products have to come from paid sources. This is a difficult issue but one where the United Kingdom has a particular problem. The United Kingdom Government has been left with no alternative than to take plasma products from paid sources to avoid putting United Kingdom citizens' lives at risk. In conclusion, I welcome this directive and its objectives, I welcome the principle of voluntary donation and I look forward to seeing EU citizens benefiting from the quality and safety of blood and blood components.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, General Morillon has written an interesting and credible report. Certain parts of it are likely to influence the Convention. Europe’s defence industries are the key to the development of the common European defence policy, which is to be part and parcel of transatlantic cooperation. A vigorous European defence industry, based on advanced research and healthy competition, must be preserved and developed. We should try to abolish protectionism in all trade, including the trade in arms, and get the United States fully to open up its arms market. The current system is inefficient and expensive. Taxpayers are entitled to demand that every euro be used in the most effective way possible. That, in turn, requires us to think European. A common bureau for defence equipment and resources is an absolute necessity. Do European taxpayers really think that having to pay for the development of three new ultra-modern war planes is rational and efficient? European defence industries are in danger of becoming assembly plants instead of places of high-tech research. Europe would in that case become weaker and more dependent. I cannot under any circumstances believe, however, that we should become stronger without Great Britain. Let us now focus upon what is constructive and build upon common definitions and methods. Only with a larger budget for defence equipment and a European research-oriented defence industry within the framework of a common defence policy can we become a credible, effective and reliable partner of the United States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what is termed the Barcelona process certainly has all the sympathy of men and women of good will. The capital of the Catalan nation was indeed worthy of being the place where a policy aimed at building bridges across the Mediterranean was launched. I must mention here in passing the memory of two illustrious Catalans who anticipated this policy each in their own way in the Middle Ages: Raymond Lull and Anselme Turmeda. I welcome the intelligent and understanding effort implemented by this policy, and in particular in the documents which are the subject of our debate. Nevertheless, given the general situation, I wonder about this policy’s chances. In order to fly the flag for democracy and human rights, we must be exemplary. We are far from it. As recently as yesterday, lawyers in this lovely city of Strasbourg publicly placed a funeral wreath in front of the prefecture mourning the death of the presumption of innocence as a result of a law which has just been voted on in France. A year ago, a Spanish judge ordered the closure of Egunkaria, the only daily newspaper in the Basque language, and imprisoned several journalists – some are still in prison. To this day, one year later, no contradictory debate has been organised to justify this blatant violation of press freedom. The criminal war waged by the United States against Iraq was subject to the active or passive complicity of the majority of Member States of the enlarged Union. This horrific wound is still bleeding, and it will do so for a long time. For many Muslims in the world it is an additional humiliation. This list is unfortunately far from exhaustive. If we are not careful, the obsession with security and the hijacking of the war against terror for partisan ends will undermine this policy, and many others, despite all the intelligence and good will of those who will try to implement it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as a supplementary, is the presidency concerned about the fact that there are so many power stations, particularly around the North Sea and in the north of Europe, where, when water is sucked in to cool the power station, vast numbers, literally billions, of tiny floating creatures that would turn into fish are destroyed. Would the President-in-Office undertake to investigate this and try to conserve the stocks of fish, many of which are destroyed in their infancy?

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the big problem is always that if you receive one proposal after the other, not everyone is aware of the other proposals. The aim of the ’s proposal is to raise a major issue, such as item 5, which allows us to discuss the shipping disaster in Greece at length. I wanted to stress this point.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the services have pointed out that the proposed amendments are identical. However, that is not the case in all the language versions and, even in the English version, there are interesting differences between the version in the committee report and the version now before plenary. The point is, do we call for the High Representative to be present at foreign and security policy debates or do we word it more politely by saying he should be invited. I think that, as we are talking about foreign and security policy, we should opt for the diplomatic wording, as contained in Amendments Nos 120 and 174.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, I should like to congratulate the Commission, and in particular Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, for her reaction to this incident, which has really shaken the whole of Europe. We, as the Committee on Transport, are prepared to discuss the Commission communication on the question of safety at sea and, of course, we are likewise prepared to discuss, at a later date, the legal implications of this communication. In addition, I should like to make a number of comments: First, the Commission was right to concentrate its investigation on the liability of RINA, the Italian shipping register, because we need to know if Community law was applied. That should be the starting point for our efforts. Secondly, apart from the shipowners’ liability, it would be a good idea in such cases to examine the liability of the charterers, for example the oil companies which are also responsible for causing ecological disasters like this and, of course, for restoring the damage. Once we have done that, our reaction to the ecological disaster is fully justified. However, this should not lead us to accuse the whole merchant marine, which is an important sector of the economy, covering as it does 1/3 of transport requirements, which is why our reaction needs to be measured: strict, but correct. I have no objection to examining an amendment making Community law stricter but, as other members have stressed, we need to start with application, because there is already a legal framework at European Union level and we must not lose sight of that fact. This legal framework is fairly advanced, at least if you compare it with what is happening at worldwide level and the Member States, under the supervision of the Commission, should endeavour to ensure that Community law is actually applied.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted against the Torres Marques report with regard to the introduction of the euro because my group, the Dutch Socialist Party, has always campaigned against the introduction of a single currency. We will remain opposed to it as long as this currency is to the detriment of investment in a sound social policy, sound collective provisions, an active environmental policy and an income policy for the benefit of the lowest income bracket. The introduction of a single currency is too soon to say the least. This is why I do not agree with a number of accompanying measures intended to shape and facilitate this introduction.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all. The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union's conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies. With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances. I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today's emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you will not believe this, but exactly 200 years ago, namely in 1799, there was the first discussion of a constitution, not for Europe but for Bavaria. This was partly for the purpose of establishing responsibilities but also because of the radical shifts in territory due to an almost 83 per cent increase in the area of Bavaria. The person with the big idea of having a constitution was the then Bavarian prime minister, Graf Montgelas, who did himself great credit by establishing a French administration in Bavaria. However, he was at the same time also the fiercest opponent of a parliament, because this could supposedly introduce unpredictable factors into politics. The arguments for and against went on for a further 18 years until at last the constitution was established and its opponents were finally quashed. And there were then already democratic elements in this constitution. Now, something else that is astonishing: the basis of the constitution was, at that time, a preamble which was drafted in 1799 and which was to set out the fundamental rights, and all this 200 years ago! I think the parallels between then and now are quite amazing. History shows that the doubters’ arguments, both then and now, are almost the same. Let us learn from history not to allow further decades to go by before Europe has a constitution. This is something for the future that we must prepare for. I should therefore like to encourage the Council not only to respect Parliament’s proposals but also to make them its own. We need a Europe which is able to act and which can also take necessary decisions. For we must also take democracy seriously, and the responsibilities which the national parliaments have given away must pass into the hands of the European Parliament, that is to say become part of the process of codecision making. We need codecision making by the European Parliament, for the European Parliament is the biggest factor favouring the integration of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if any of the guests in the galleries who are with us today had attended the debate that took place in this House in March, they would not understand a thing, because today the benches of the have piled on the criticisms of the Barcelona process when in March, on assessing that Council, we voted for an extremely favourable Resolution. I would like to remind certain people that we cannot go against our own acts and that what was good three months ago cannot be bad now. My second point is the issue of immigration. I believe that this Presidency has given a fine example of something very important in politics, which is what in sporting terms is known as suppleness. Immigration was not one of the Spanish Presidency’s priorities, but it has noted that it is now one of the citizens’ priorities, and it has incorporated it into its agenda. And furthermore it is true that there are many issues that have been paralysed for some time in the Council. I believe that instead of criticising that incorporation, we should have applauded the attempt to promote all these issues. There is a final question, however, which was mentioned by President Poettering, which I believe to be extremely important and which has not perhaps been discussed so much, which is the delay in enlargement. For a long time, led by this Parliament, we have been asking for enlargement to take place within specific time limits and now, all of a sudden, certain Member States, certain leaders of Member States, want to carry out certain modifications of the common agricultural policy, for example, which will make enlargement impossible within those limits. Therefore, within the constructive environment of this House, I would ask our friends on the to speak to Mr Schröder, to Mr Persson and to Mr Blair to see if we can prevent the hindering of enlargement, so that it can go ahead when we want. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to repeat what the three previous speakers have said, with which I totally concur. In addition, my colleague, Mr Swoboda, will also say a few words about the reasons behind this war. There is a very broad consensus within this Parliament condemning both the war against civilians in Chechnya and the terrorism which started in Chechnya, and this same consensus applies to the desire to maintain good and special relations with Russia. On the other hand, we are determined not simply to stand by and watch whilst Russia violates one international convention after another in this war in Chechnya. We support the proposal from Mr Lukin, the Co-President of the Interparliamentary Delegation of the European Parliament and Russian Duma to send a fact-finding mission to Chechnya to gather information on the ground. We want to make use of this information at a later stage, that is after the delegation has returned, as the basis for a major debate in this House, involving the Council and the Commission, and leading to the adoption of a really well founded resolution. For this reason and this reason alone we, the Group of the , urge you not to adopt a motion for a resolution today – which would in fact bring the total to seven – and instead wait until we have the information we need for an in-depth debate resulting in a joint resolution.

Political group: PSE