GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the framework for our transatlantic relations, I believe we have to start with the current framework, which is the Madrid Declaration of December 1995, issued under the Spanish Presidency. I do not recall that the President-in-Office of the Council mentioned this declaration, which defines our framework; I do not know whether that is because a Socialist government adopted it, but in any case, as it was the Presidency of the Union, I recommend that he should take it into account this May, and Mr Elles will not deny this since we worked together at the time for the Spanish Government to push this very important declaration through the Council. I really must say to the President-in-Office of the Council that I believe this declaration should be brought up to date, for various reasons. First, because of the situation since 11 September: we have not merely shown our solidarity with the United States, but we have also adopted measures. In this fight, however, as in all others – I must be frank about this – we are allies, but we have to work together on an equal footing, and our American allies – as some ministers in the Union have said – must understand that we are equals and subservience has no place here, which means that we must not systematically bow to unilateral decisions. This applies to many things. We have to act jointly in the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Balkans; it is to be hoped that the United States will reconsider their position on Kyoto and especially with regard to certain worrying announcements by the Bush Administration. With regard to the specific question of the steel issue, which the Commissioner, Mr Lamy, has developed further, we believe that we must adopt a firm stance and we also support taking reprisal measures. We do not understand why, for example, the United States trade representative, Mr Zoellick, is today developing the worldwide international conspiracy theory to say that the United States is being attacked through steel imports. The history of the European Union began with the Coal and Steel Community, which was a restructuring process. I understand that Mr Bush wants to win elections, but what the Americans have to do is restructure their steel industry, which will demand sacrifice, and we should not have to pay for the restructuring of American industry. We have to make this quite plain and, in addition, there are proposals such as applying a 2% surcharge so as to be able to restructure the industry. What does not make sense is that we should have to pay this, when in this Parliament we systematically have to deal with the banana war, hormones and GMOs, and we always have to check the list to see what reprisal measures we can take within the bounds of our own countries. Our American friends and allies have to understand that we cannot go on working like this, and we therefore call on the Commission to take the strongest line possible to make them see reason.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the details of the European Constitution are extremely important. For that reason it is important that the IGC does not take any step backwards. Our citizens want more Europe. They cannot understand why Europe is not more present in the United Nations. They cannot understand why we impose on ourselves international impotence in the face of the conflicts that surround us in the world at large. They want a Europe that is based on human values, based firmly on universal rights. If I might just address those who are calling for Christianity in the Constitution, could I suggest that if God existed she might ask the men who run the churches and the synagogues and the mosques to respect all human rights, and in particular respect the rights of the women they exclude from their ceremonies and from their theologies! Could I suggest that it is important that we do not reduce the Constitution to its detail, that we do not damn it with faint praise by suggesting that it is just a tidying up exercise, because the spirit of the Constitution is greater than the sum of its parts. We must appeal to the better instincts of our peoples, to bear in mind that what we are trying to create is a Europe based on human values. We are trying to demonstrate that it is possible at a global level to achieve the dream of democratic global governance. Many people have quoted Irish poets over the past few days in the big speeches that have been made, Seamus Heaney in particular, and his line that hope chimes with history. Could I remind the IGC of another Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, who warned the founders of the Irish state to tread softly as they tread on our dreams. The Constitution is a dream that we need to have put into practice. I urge the IGC not to step back from it. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Many questions are raised by the Commission’s initiative and by Parliament’s corresponding report. We welcome moves to achieve a greater understanding of environmental threats to human health, to identify disease burden caused by environmental factors and to plan policy responses to challenges that emerge. I do wonder, however, whether we would be better advised to assess and to show evidence of the impact of current policies in force at EU level, examples of which include the effects of the common agricultural policy on large agricultural companies; the policies of liberalisation that encourage the privatisation of essential public services, such as access to water, which are entirely focused on profit (for the few); or the watering down of the Kyoto objectives by establishing a market of polluting emissions, with priority given to the interests of large corporations. There are indeed other examples. It is, consequently, a pity that the report makes a brief reference to the need for ‘an intersectoral approach’. The report also places emphasis on the need to apply the precautionary principle, when the science is not conclusive but when there is a potentially serious or irreversible threat to health or the environment, especially in the context of the debate on genetically modified organisms (GMO).

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mrs Thors, the ARD (association of German broadcasting corporations) wants to bring a complaint before the European Court of Justice against the television alliance between the media companies owned by Kirch and Murdoch. These are the new dangers facing new media: mergers between market leaders. Similar discussions to the ones that have already taken place over Microsoft are now attracting attention in this sector. The question of the moment as regards digital TV is whether it is possible to secure a monopoly with the access hardware alone, i.e. the D-box in this case, particularly when leading companies in the IT sector merge with traditional media businesses. Nor should we be under any illusions from a cultural point of view. There will not automatically be more interactivity or more people who know how to handle their computer via the TV. Therefore it is still important to stand firm on the duty public service broadcasting has to society, to prevent the formation of monopolies, particularly in the media industry, and to work towards fair access and educating people in self-access to these media.

Political group: Verts-ALE
At the last part-session, I raised under points of order, this whole question and asked the presidency to give this House a comprehensive report about the state of reform discussions as soon as possible. So far, we have not had this report and I emphasise here the concerns of my colleague Mrs Morgan. In my report, that was passed by a very big majority in this House, we set the linear career structure on merit as the centre-piece of the reform. But it appears from comments being made by one of the Vice-Presidents of this Parliament in the newspapers and not to this House, that the whole issue is now not regarded as important by the Bureau. I hope I have the support of all colleagues in the House in saying that we still consider this the centre-piece of the reforms and we do not see any reason why Parliament should not follow a similar line to that being taken by the Commission in this crucial area. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our group supports the proposal to timetable Mr Solana's statement for 5 p.m. tomorrow, and to combine it with a debate, so that the time from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. would then be available for it. Members must also be aware of the fact – which we must view sympathetically – that Mr Solana cannot be here on Wednesday, as he will be on his way to meet the American Secretary of State in Madrid. We in Parliament have to accept this reason for his absence. I have, though, one request, and would be grateful if other groups could join me in making it. I am, in particular, addressing Mr Barón Crespo, as I do not want to place conditions on our agreement to defer the vote on budgetary control. We have, though, accepted your argument, and I ask you to accept, when we prepare a resolution on the Middle East, that the vote be held on Thursday rather than on Wednesday. Our group is not actually in favour of a resolution, but the Conference of Presidents took the contrary view that there should be one. As democrats, we accept that. We will also be joining in the negotiation of a resolution, although we already had a very sound resolution in the last part-session, and will be playing our part as the ground-rules of Parliament require. If, though, negotiations take place on Wednesday in Madrid between the European Union – represented by Mr Solana and Mr Piquet – on the one hand and Secretary of State Powell on the other, it must be possible for the results of their discussions to find their way into the text along with everything else. That will probably not be that straightforward in procedural terms, but the groups here should in any case be able to comment verbally on what comes out of Madrid. It is, then, my urgent request that we should not vote on the text of the resolution on Wednesday – that would in any case be too late for the talks in Madrid – but should vote on Thursday, when the results from Madrid will be known. I should be grateful if you could agree to that, for we too are accommodating when you bring to this House matters in which you have a justifiable interest. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, let me start by acknowledging the contribution that my colleague, Mr Moreira Da Silva, has made to the emissions trading directive and all matters relating to Kyoto for so long. He has been called back to serve in the Portuguese Government. He will be missed, and particularly his expertise in that area. This evening we are dealing with a proposal for revising the monitoring mechanisms laid down in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and in the Kyoto Protocol. New rules are necessary for many reasons: scientific progress in the last decade, new elements such as carbon sinks, the transboundary nature of gas emissions and the obvious need for a Community approach and the harmonisation of rules in this area. In other words, as the European Environment Agency has told us, we need consistency and transparency in reporting on greenhouse gas emissions. From an Irish perspective, we view the proposal very positively. It is in our interest to have a structured system in place at EU level to assist in the development of our own domestic requirements. The proposal is also relevant for the assessment of national allocation plans under the proposed emissions trading directive, which is going through at the moment. We have some concerns in relation to deadlines. I hope that they are practical and achievable, as regards the various aspects in the proposal. If they are practical and realistic, then it will be possible to insist on delivery from all Member States, even those that have difficulties in reaching targets in this area. If they are not practical and people are agreeing to them, then we will be giving hostages to fortune in this regard. Ireland's situation as regards Kyoto targets is, to be honest, fairly dismal. Ireland was offered 1990 levels, plus 13%. The last time we looked, emissions were already at 1990 levels, plus 22%. I understand that the EU average is currently at about 1% over. Ireland has a lot to do in this particular area and anything that can help us to collect our minds and deliver – as we must as a nation – is to be welcomed. I welcome the proposal before us here today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, maybe it is an opportunity as well as an honour to have the last word in such an important debate. I think that this debate has highlighted the potential for the European Parliament, especially when it comes to Romania, on which I should like to say a few words. As a former national member of parliament, I know that a national member of parliament can do very little. What Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne has done for Romania, with her report and her hard work, is to get things moving there. The Commissioner acknowledged as much this morning and I think that we could use this as an example to the numerous groups of visitors who question exactly what we in the European Parliament can do. To start with, the head of government in Romania reacted as perhaps every head of government in the world would react. He claimed that Mr Verheugen had said, not to worry, it is only the European Parliament. Talk to the Commission if you want to become a member of the European Union one day. I am sure that Mr Verheugen said no such thing. All the Romanian media quoted him, although they then acknowledged that it makes sense to take a closer look at Parliament's reports and opinions; we have reached a legal position on the question of orphans and homosexuals in Romania which now has to be implemented, something which was unthinkable a few weeks ago. I should like, if I may, to comment on a question which divides the House. The Socialist group and Mr Sakellariou have tabled a proposed amendment asking if the report should mention euro-Atlantic structures, yes or no? The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy says yes, if Romania wants to join these euro-Atlantic structures, then we want to support this and I think it is important, especially in Romania's case, that we do. We know that Romania will not accede in the first round in 2004 and a decision to invite Romania to join the North Atlantic Alliance in 2002 is therefore all the more important. This would bring stability to the whole of Europe and I therefore call on you to reject this amendment tomorrow and support the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this report was also voted under Rule 110a of the Rules of Procedure which allows for no debate and no amendments to the report. The British delegation of the Group has previously sought to amend reports which it did not support. The new rule, however, leaves us no option but to vote against certain reports. Most of this report represents the very worse of politically correct claptrap. Women are increasingly achieving more top positions in society and this will continue to improve as, in my country at least, women are more successful than men in gaining university places. We do not support quotas or interference in the ways in which trades unions, for example, select their officers. The Committee on Women's Affairs and Equal Opportunities talks about gender mainstreaming whilst at the same time its very existence contradicts this principle.

Political group: PPE-DE
The proposals in the Lavarra report make no reference whatsoever to the negative changes being promoted with the mid-term review or to olive oil because, as it says, it considers it a fait accompli, in which case all that remains is to regulate certain aspects of the olive oil market. That is why all his amendments, which are positive in almost their entirety (such as the abolition of the practice of mixing olive oil with other fatty substances) are limited to that. We radically disagree with the logic of considering the mid-term review for olive oil as a foregone conclusion and with the substance of the review, in other words with the uncoupling of a significant proportion of subsidies from production, freezing olive production at the levels of 1 May 1998, reducing Community appropriations for olive oil and so on. The Commission proposal should hardly even constitute the basis for debate in the European Parliament and should be rejected in its entirety, because it creates a situation which is far worse than the current situation and does not under any circumstances satisfy olive producers. We voted against the report, despite its individual positive points, because it accepts the mid-term review for olive oil as a foregoing conclusion. The Communist Party of Greece calls on olive producers to fight so that the review is not implemented in practice, so that ceilings on olive production are abolished and so that subsidies are paid on actual production and to put a stop to the mockery and derision of olive producers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
My initial reaction is rather positive, as I believe that the Commission proposals are along the right lines. We cannot ask for better coordination of the Member States’ economic policies without also calling for an improvement in the coordination process for economic, social and sustainable development policies at European Union level. I believe that all processes relating to the BGEP, namely the Luxembourg, Cardiff, Cologne, Lisbon and Stockholm processes, and any others, for that matter, need to be rationalised. The experts are beginning to lose the thread, and the citizens are completely lost. Rationalisation is therefore required, provided, of course, that the European Parliament and the national parliaments are involved in the said processes. If I have understood Mr Solbes correctly, in future we will have coordination for the medium term, with a complete review every three years. Three years is a long time, however, for a Parliament with a five-year mandate and a Commission that also has a life expectancy of five years. Some legislatures would, therefore, only hold one major debate on the broad guidelines. In addition to this, three years is a very long time in economic terms. Three years ago, Mr President, the world stock markets were all bullish. Two years ago, however, the bubble burst, causing substantial collateral damage. Therefore, and this is my question, can you envisage not adapting the guidelines to the development of the economy and of life in society?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to thank the Council and the Commission for that very insightful analysis of what has been going on. This resolution is an important step forward in favour of international law and the rule of law. As we speak, there are some 48 civil conflicts around the world – the majority of them in Africa – being conducted largely in the promotion of one or more supposed sectional or tribal interests. Sub-Saharan Africa has seen millions of people massacred, genocide committed, whole tribes ethnically cleansed in the last 20 years. Ostensibly, these conflicts have been based, as in Angola or Rwanda, on so-called historic divisions. But the reality is that an underlying factor in most of these cases has been commercial gain, based on supposed tribal protection. Various sectional and commercial interests, some of them based in Europe, have tried to exploit these differences for commercial gain to procure the supply of diamonds, timber, oil, gold, cobalt, titanium and vanadium. Africa is supposed to be one of the richest continents in the world, inhabited by the poorest people in the world. How can this be so? This is so because the rule of law and international law has not operated in Africa for a long time. The Democratic Republic of Congo has been exploited, looted and robbed. Its people have been set against one another, encouraged to massacre each other and sometimes to commit genocide, so that powerful vested interests outside Africa can collude and gain advantage. This report by the United Nations Security Council is a seminal report in that it sets out for the first time to establish that international law incorporates a moral right to a concept of shared sovereignty, that sovereignty is not merely what is defined in the Montevideo Convention or President Wilson's 14-point rule, and that in a global trading environment as we see now with the WTO and global rules on trade, we have to share our sovereignty when the rule of law becomes paramount. If we can penalise the United States for doing something wrong with its steel, why is it that we are not able to do something in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where millions of people have been exploited and killed for commercial gain? So I welcome this resolution and I commend it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Committee on Petitions considers this report to be extremely important. Enlargement is the most exciting, difficult political challenge of this century and cannot just be addressed from an accounting perspective. We need more political ambition and a less parochial, more global vision of politics. The quality of the European Union’s politics must be enhanced too, and the Union must become more than just a large market. Only political stature can make us credible interlocutors in the western world as difficult processes of cultural, economic and, above all, judicial integration are developed. Small-minded, petty egotism will be of no help to us; conservatism is in danger of making us introspective and isolated, with serious medium- and long-term consequences. The enlargement process is now underway. The slow, gradual adjustments that are being made in the candidate countries, as we have heard, must not just be encouraged but supported and not just at the top but with appropriate budgetary policies in a climate of solidarity and rigour and with a view to safeguarding development and peace, if we are to avoid the danger of Eurosceptic reactions.

Political group: ELDR
In 1993, the Commission admitted that the laws on animal transport were being systematically flouted. In 1999, we had further evidence of particular problems in Spain, Italy and Greece. There is no reason to believe that implementation enforcement has improved at all since 1993 or 1999. Animals frequently still find themselves crammed into overcrowded trucks, given neither food nor water, often for journeys flouting the current limits and travelling for up to 30 or 40 hours. The combination of high temperatures, poor ventilation, overcrowding and lack of water can be lethal. Many animals suffer extreme discomfort during transport and arrive dead or dying at their destination. The European Parliament has repeatedly voted in favour of an eight-hour limit on transport. It had the overwhelming support of a majority in plenary. It had the support of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I am pleased to hear that a proposal will follow the opinion of the Scientific Committee, but what is the Commission going to do to ensure the proposal is enforced properly and to ensure the current laws are enforced properly? What specific actions is Commissioner Byrne going to take to improve enforcement both of current laws and the laws that we hope to see implementing an eight-hour limit and an end to export subsidies?

Political group: PPE-DE