GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I wish to speak in a personal capacity on a point of order because I have been traduced here tonight by the rapporteur, Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca. I am entitled to my opinion, and so I repeat that this directive has been stripped of all meaningful safety requirements. It has zero to add to the existing safety requirements of the IEA, therefore it is a nonsense. Not only is it a nonsense, it is a scandalous nonsense. The genuine work that has been done is, as has been said, a PR exercise – a whitewash exercise. This is very clear from the Council's response. The Council has – and will retain – the ultimate responsibility for the nuclear safety of our citizens. ...

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too would like to start by wishing Mrs Haug, and also the Commissioner, every success with their first budget and the many stages they still have to get through before they can sign it off in December. I could not agree more with Mrs Haug when she stated in her introduction that she favours a thrifty budget. I share this view. I believe this is the least we owe our electorate, for a number of reasons. This year too, discussion will focus on what we must do in the Balkans, and particularly in Kosovo. My position is roughly the same as the one I took last year. I am prepared to get involved, but I want to know exactly how much money it will cost first. A figure of 5.5 billion has been plucked out of the air, but no one has made out a satisfactory case for this as yet. I also agree with many other speakers that it is unacceptable for one category of the budget to have to be saddled with covering these costs. We should use the relevant budget items for this and perhaps turn to agriculture from time to time when there is actually money left over in this category. In short, amending the financial perspective is not an end in itself, but should only be undertaken, in my view, as an absolute last resort. My final point does not relate specifically to next year, but to the years to come. A tiny amount of the whole agriculture budget is to be earmarked for the outbreak of infectious animal diseases. I believe that if we were to have another swine fever crisis in Europe, or a BSE crisis, it would cost the earth. I therefore feel that the Commission should get down to work as quickly as possible on an insurance system for outbreaks of infectious animal diseases of this kind.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the European Capital of Culture programme is one of the European Union's success stories. It gets Europe out of Brussels and Strasbourg and into the hearts and minds of people right across Europe. Cities compete to become the Capital of Culture - which is regarded as an accolade - and indeed they should. In Britain, Glasgow's time as the European Capital of Culture in 1990 was a real success story. Today it is the third most visited city in Britain. Glasgow's urban renaissance provided a blueprint for others and I am sure that Liverpool - the home of the Beatles as nobody needs reminding - will have great success during its year in 2008. As an MEP from the south-east of England, I am only sorry that our candidates of Canterbury, Brighton and Oxford were not chosen. Any one of them would have been a great Capital of Culture. As an English Conservative I have great respect for our French Socialist President of the Committee on Culture; I admire the first quality, I will excuse the second! In this instance I believe the majority in the committee was correct. It was too long to wait until 2019 for any of the accession states to have the opportunity to become a Capital of Culture. By sharing the list from 2009, when Lithuania will be the first of the accession states to get the opportunity, we will not detract from the principle: we will introduce the opportunity of cooperation across Europe, putting Europe back into the concept. That is something we can look forward to: cooperation is, after all, what Europe is all about.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the transatlantic relationship is very important: it was a priority of the last Spanish Presidency and is again under the current one, and we must therefore do whatever we can to preserve it. What is happening is that, like any relationship, there are two sides to it, and we are now seeing that the Bush Administration is strongly tempted to act on its own; that is, to practise the Frank Sinatra doctrine: ‘I’ll do it my way’, both in politics – I only have two minutes and I cannot expand on this – and in trade. Trade never used to be an area that tested this relationship: we considered trade disputes to be an exception, while trade benefits were the rule. Now, however, they have gone too far, on both steel and another product that is less talked about: clementines. The cases are different: clementines affect just one country (the region, by the way, where Commissioner Solbes comes from) and steel affects us all. Both cases go against the WTO rules without any justification at all and, what is more, they imply self-punishment by the United States. We have to withstand both the indirect damage – I believe traffic diversion measures can be taken – and the direct damage. There are several possibilities: one is to take action within the WTO, but that will take time and, in the long run, we shall all be dead; there is also the possibility of laissez-faire, of doing nothing, because the derived industries that import steel inputs will become less competitive and therefore we will be able to take over from them; but what I believe we must to is act immediately. The provisional measures that can be adopted are within easy reach, covered by the panel judgment on the Foreign Sales Task Corporation, and therefore we must act immediately.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the report on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in Croatia and highlights the European prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. Its membership of the NATO Partnership for Peace and of the World Trade Organisation, its bilateral agreements with the EFTA states, its free-trade agreements with the CEFTA member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 November, on a wide-ranging Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union are all evidence that Croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 January 2000. The European Union emphasised this again by the summit held in Zagreb on 24 November. However, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside Yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. If this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which is based on regional cooperation. For even now states like Croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to Europe. Croatia, like a more democratic Serbia, where I hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 December, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. It is important for the European Union, as also the European Parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. Even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the European Union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and Mr Baltas' report takes that principle into account. But we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. Croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Parliament's report rightly notes that. Another point in Croatia's favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected Croatian authorities to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Croatia has always felt part of western Europe, western culture. It needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform.

Political group: PPE-DE
Last month when I asked a supplementary question in Question Time, this President-in-Office simply avoided giving me a supplementary by saying: 'I can only repeat my previous answer' and reading out the previous answer again. This time I will give him a chance not to read out the previous answer but ask him for an undertaking and an agreement. Does the President-in-Office agree that there should be no decision made on this proposal until there has been a full impact assessment of the effect on the Union, the ACP countries and the LDC countries? Yes or no?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, during this debate, certain things have become clear and have enjoyed general consensus. There is a general consensus that the crisis is affecting the European Union’s shipbuilding industry. There is a general consensus that this crisis is due, amongst other things, to unfair competition on the part of the Republic of South Korea, which, according to Mr Caudron, consists of three elements: prices which are lower than costs, aid to shipyards and the maintenance of bankrupt shipyards. I have also stressed that the crisis is serious. Over the last 10 years, Korea has increased its capacity by 180%, while we have reduced ours by 30%. What have we done so far? So far, we have signed an agreement with South Korea which that country has not respected. We have lodged a complaint which is yet to be dealt with. And recently, a twin course of action has been decided upon: firstly, to take the case to the WTO and, secondly, to establish the defensive, selective and temporary mechanism which we are discussing. It is as if Commissioner Bolkestein, faced with the non-compliances of Korea, had used the words of Cicero to Catiline: 'Quousque tandem abutere Catilina patientia nostra [How long now, Catiline, will you abuse our patience]'. I would remind those Members, almost all from the North, who have spoken against this decision, of a military aphorism which says that ‘the mission of the artillery is to bomb the infantry, preferably that of the enemy’. In this case, the weapons of the North are aiming at European positions, bringing to mind in many cases the situation of Japan or that of other industries. What does the European Parliament want to do? Support Mr Bolkestein whole-heartedly and ask him to be more generous. To be more generous in relation to the field of protection: that is to say, as Mr Ortuondo has stressed, that it also be extended to those vessels which suffer from unfair competition, those which transport gases, car ferries, etc. and that he be less stingy in terms of the date of application. That he extend this temporary and defensive measure until 2003. May God bless you if you do this, Mr Bolkestein.

Political group: PPE-DE
We need to ensure that the e-publishing agenda is fully taken on board and that this important field can be developed in a meaningful manner alongside the traditional form of publishing, and that there is room for both. I welcome the emphasis the document puts on linguistic and cultural diversity and the important contribution of the written word to the development of culture in the different European regions. Seeing that there is much emphasis on linguistic and cultural diversity I trust that references in the report to ‘all languages’ encompasses lesser used languages. E-publishing is especially important for books with a limited market, academic books and books in lesser-used languages are in this category. It is therefore important that the Commission and Council take this into consideration when considering this report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in relation to the point that you raised after Commissioner Fischler had spoken. I feel the noise in this Chamber is an absolute disgrace. I know all the Presidents try desperately to stop it. I suggest the presidency look at possibly having a five-minute break between the end of Commissioners' statements and the vote. We cannot continue to allow Commissioners to be treated this way. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group will support Mrs Malmström's proposals, and I would also like to offer her our congratulations for the hard work she has put in for more than nine months and in negotiating intensely with the Commission. Parliament and the Commission have long recognised that legislative planning is a matter of common concern. The Commission has the right of initiative. My group does not seek to change that. We have the right to call upon the Commission to make proposals already given to us in the Treaty. It has the right of initiative. We are a parliament that is master of its own timetable, unlike some national parliaments. We both therefore have an interest in reaching an understanding on the legislative programme coming up in any given year so as to plan our work, so as to exchange views on priorities, so as to reach agreement and convergence as much as possible. That has long been the case, but the actual procedures by which we have done it have not always been working satisfactorily, and I welcome this updating and rationalisation that has been put forward. Given the number of times that we will be discussing and looking at the following year's programme in the different fora over a year, my one fear is that, if we are not self-disciplined, we will spend an enormous amount of time looking at what will come up well over a year ahead, without being very concrete. We must be self-disciplined and make sure that problem does not arise. There is a ghost missing from this feast, namely the Council, and the role of the Council presidency. Council presidencies often present a programme to Parliament as if they were assuming executive office. Council presidents must remember that they are not taking over executive office when they become president of the Council. They are merely chairing the body which is the co-legislative body with Parliament for a short period of six months, with an inherited agenda. We must make sure that this legislative planning works without upsetting the whole balance of the system by delivering it in the wrong way.

Political group: PSE
The tourism industry is important for the future of all EU Member States' economies and it is vital that the EU focuses its attention on tourism's future. Indeed, over the next ten years, employment in this industry is set to increase by a massive 15%. The tourism industry has benefited from the single currency and its continued growth is directly linked to the fact that EU citizens now possess more disposable income. However, we must not rest on our laurels but ensure that tourism remains dynamic and that this growth does not stagnate. This is why I fully endorse this report. Tourism should become treaty based, not so that operators incur excessive regulation – indeed, the growth of the industry depends upon its ability to innovate independently – but so that it is seen as a serious European issue. This would also establish some kind of long-term and binding EU tourism strategy. This will guarantee that European tourism stays on target and caters for the future needs of Europe's holiday-makers.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Laeken Summit is to form the basis of a new EU treaty. The European Parliament’s resolution demands that this change to the treaties results in a constitution for the EU, that is to say, a decisive step of sorts on the way to a federal state. I believe that something essential has been forgotten, namely that the Irish people have made use of their right to reject the Treaty of Nice. This right, and this rejection of the treaty by the Irish people, should be respected at the Laeken Summit and a statement made to the effect that the Treaty should be rewritten. The message from Ireland is clear: less centralism and supranationalism and more respect for national democracy. What we need are treaty changes along the following lines: openness in the Council of Ministers, with the opportunity to monitor decisions by the national parliaments, at the same time as the national parliaments are given the opportunity to propose laws instead of this right’s being located in the Commission bureaucracy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the regulation on the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway endeavours to do some good, to help, with a new aid scheme, to make something out of the set phrases spouted by soap-box speakers on the subject of transport, by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic, on to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, mainly from the roads to the railways, inland waterways etc. That is, as I say, all well and good. And the detailed work produced by our rapporteur on this proposal is also good, including what the Committee has added in a whole series of proposed amendments, including short sea shipping, including combined transport procedures, disregarding whether the carrier is a public or private company, not to mention a de minimis rule intended to keep excessive administrative costs within prescribed limits. Regretfully, we must also point out what this regulation cannot achieve. Mr Camisón Asensio himself has addressed this. We still have to live with transport policy specifications from the last century, admittedly from the middle and the second half of the 20th century, but hardly forward-looking models for the 21st century. If we really want to stem the tide of traffic on the roads in the future, we must do more than change a few aid rules for the benefit of the railways and shipping. And if we do more, then we should do it consistently. The Commission has just submitted a proposal to abolish – without replacing – the quantitative ceiling of 108% in the agreement on transit traffic through Austria. Whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the Camisón Asensio report I somehow doubt. The forthcoming discussion on this new proposal will give us an opportunity to clarify this question.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, firstly I would like to say that, out of self-respect, we should not create false arguments amongst ourselves. Human rights should not only be defended when we come here, but they should be defended constantly. I believe we are all united in this fight. There are no substantial differences between us. It would have been a good thing if, in the past, when the Socialist Group proposed an urgent debate on the situation in Tunisia, we could have counted on the votes of those people who are protesting today, because we have not managed to have that urgency approved. However, I would like to remind you – I was the first speaker at the last Brussels part-session and I asked you, Madam President, on behalf of all of us, to write to President Ben Ali of Tunisia – that what we have to do now is wait for the President of Tunisia to reply to you in your capacity as leader of this Parliament. Secondly, I would like to point out that the matter of our relations with Tunisia does not end with an urgent debate. It is a much more important and substantial issue and my Group has agreed today to present an oral question to the Commission and the Council in order that we may hold a full debate on this issue. I believe that if Mr Cohn-Bendit, for example, wishes for a full debate on this question, he should support our proposal so that we can include it in the next agenda. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on this, as indeed on the two subsequent reports we are going to vote, we should now vote in favour of the legislative resolution which rejects the Council's proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we do not have anything against postponing the vote. However, I insist on the other scheduled votes, particularly those on the Lisbon Summit, going ahead tomorrow. We have nothing against postponement, with this proviso.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was very pleased to hear just now that Commissioner Lamy believes that it is very likely that during the next round of WTO negotiations production and labelling methods will also have to be considered. What I would like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you are willing to accept that imports from third countries are also subject to the same criteria that apply to production at European level, be it in agriculture or elsewhere. Are you prepared, for the sake of public health, and that is what is at stake here after all, to take such steps to counter this opposition during the next WTO round?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr Titley, is unable to attend the debate and has asked me to make various comments on the Committee's behalf. The Committee has set itself three objectives: firstly, to make clear which foreign policy priorities the European Union intends to set in the new financial year without wrecking the stipulated financial framework. Secondly, we want more transparency. A number of amendments to the budget's nomenclature are designed to increase the flow of resources. These proposed amendments also have no financial implications, but will lead to more budget transparency and thus facilitate budgetary control. The third issue, which is a particular priority for the draftsman of the opinion and the Committee, is to improve the security of our delegations around the world. Remedial action needs to be taken here and we want to support this process. Let me take each of these three points in turn. On the first point, we are planning some increases in funding to reflect political priorities for the cross-border programmes under TACIS. The European Union's new external borders require more funding for cooperation across these borders, which is why we have proposed a number of increases. The second issue is nuclear safety. This too is a priority for this House, and we want to see this reflected in the budget figures for next year. Anti-personnel mines and the rapid reaction mechanism are also areas where we have proposed budget increases. Then we have a scenario reminiscent of the film Dinner for One at New Year, with the ‘same procedure as every year’, when the Commission cuts the funding for human rights and democracy budget lines and the Parliament bumps it up again. We intend to do so this year as well, and we would ask the Commission to take note for once next year that Parliament is setting these priorities and that this should be reflected in the draft budget. In the interests of transparency, we would like Afghanistan to be a separate budget line, not a sub-item under Asia. A great deal of money will flow to Afghanistan over the coming years, so this is very important. Finally, the draftsman has also urged us to ensure that there is, in future, regular disclosure of the budget lines for Palestine so that it can be ascertained from the outset where the money is going. In my view, better budgetary control is needed here. These are our priorities. Let me conclude by addressing a request to the Council. This House asks to be involved more closely in future when making new political promises in the foreign policy field. Otherwise, if the Council continues to make a succession of new promises without the money to back them up, we will forfeit our credibility.

Political group: PPE-DE