GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I do not dispute the fact that the Rules of Procedure form the backbone of our sittings. Neither do I dispute the fact that an amendment to the Rules of Procedure is to be approved. But it was clear this week, having discussed this amendment extensively, that leading members from all groups were in favour of amending these Rules of Procedure now. It completely staggers me to think that political rearguard action has led to a situation where the largest group of this Parliament is now prepared to give out negative vibes to the outside world. We warned against this happening only this week. We said: please do not hide behind formal objections. Nobody has been able to prove that the formal objections will remain a reality after this amendment is adopted. Rumour now has it that there is no majority for this amendment itself. Well, I can tell you this much: we are repeating the same mistake we made in May. We gave bad vibes then too, namely that, despite all agreements, there continues to be a majority here in favour of maintaining a privileged situation. As far as I am concerned, these agreements are sacred. I do hope that we can approve this amendment. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, as the rapporteur emphasises, our experience of the previous fisheries agreement with Greenland was extremely disappointing, with much lower percentages of catches than the quotas that were initially established. Despite that fact that it did not fish, the European Union nevertheless made payments, on time, of an average of EUR 38 million per year during the period covered by the previous agreement. The most shocking aspect of this third agreement is that fishing possibilities for the period in question are being reduced, whereas the European Union’s financial compensation, which stands at around EUR 43 million per year, is being increased. In other words, we are paying more for fishing considerably less. What has brought about this decision by the European Union to sign a fisheries agreement despite the negative experience of the previous agreement? Our rapporteur highlights two main reasons: the first is the importance of this agreement for the conclusion of other agreements in the region, specifically with Norway and Iceland, and the second reason is that it is crucial for the fleets of countries that fish there. For these reasons and despite all the inconsistencies, the rapporteur proposes that we adopt the report. I understand these reasons and shall, therefore, not oppose the rapporteur’s proposal, although I have adopted various amendments tabled by other Members of the House. We must nevertheless bear in mind that, according to the two main arguments invoked by the rapporteur to persuade us to support this agreement, this one was to be followed by other fisheries agreements, which did not happen, as we know, with the agreement with Morocco. The agreement with Morocco was not signed despite the fact that this was essential to the fleets of two Member States that fished there and the fact that it was a fundamental sign that we needed to give in order to conclude other fisheries agreements in the region, with Mauritania and with other countries to the south of Mauritania, for example. There can be no doubt that this is an incomprehensible two-tier policy with two sets of standards, and I hope that the relevant Member State governments – Portugal and Spain – take due account of what has happened and what is happening with this agreement with Greenland, in order to make a similar procedure hold sway in the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
I respect the reasons for which the British delegation has abstained on Amendments Nos 5 and 8 – junior doctors – but I have not followed this line since firstly, this is a negotiating position and secondly, my close family experience of a highly stressed and overworked NHS midwife do not allow me to impose long working hours on vital medical staff for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Political group: PSE
Bad governments should disappear via the ballot box, not via the barrel of a gun. This also applies to the Côte d’Ivoire. The widespread dissatisfaction – with good reason – about the corrupt Bédié regime does not justify a coup d’état. It is now a case of the new leaders keeping their word and restoring democracy in the short term, laying down a constitution and ultimately holding free elections in June under international supervision. It is also essential that corruption is tackled. If the new regime does not keep its promises, the cooperation agreement with Europe will need to be suspended. The government of national unity has very little time to restore international confidence. The sooner it disappears from the scene via the ballot box, the better.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we are in the middle of taking a vote. I merely wanted to point out how absurd these foreshortened sessions are, without a Friday. It is never possible to deal satisfactorily with the agenda. (Sustained applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, safety is of central importance in all activities, but it is absolutely crucial when it comes to activities involving nuclear material. There must be no room for human error. Nor must there be the possibility of sabotage or of plant or nuclear material being exposed to acts of terrorism. It is therefore gratifying that the Euratom report indicates increased safety and greater awareness of the risks. The committee has been very united in placing more focus upon safety and upon measures to bring home the importance of safety issues to all those engaged in work involving nuclear materials. I would particularly draw attention to staff training issues, increased safety in the area of transport and the increased risk of acts of terrorism with which we have all been living since 11 September 2001. Nuclear power is a much debated and very controversial form of energy. We have experienced a number of serious accidents and quite a lot of incidents that could have ended very badly if staff and safety systems had not been up to the mark. Safety issues are therefore absolutely crucial in any handling of nuclear material and must never be neglected. Public anxiety about nuclear power, nuclear material and matters associated with these must always be taken with the greatest seriousness.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, we may not hold the higher moral ground, but we do have higher mountains. We Austrians are not asking for a solution for the coming decades ... (Applause) ... but we are, quite simply, asking for a very brief transitional period until such time as the Europe-wide solution is in place, one which will, once and for all, cover the Alps as a whole. This is not about Austria; this is about the Alps. As an Austrian, I can say that we are very proud of what we have achieved where the environment is concerned. We have a high level of awareness where the protection of the environment is concerned, and, with the possible exception of Switzerland, no other country in Europe lives in and with mountains to such a degree. To quote our national anthem, we are ‘a land of mountains, a land of valleys’. We live with mountains; they are part of our soul, and we cannot live without them. Please do not make life hell for the people who have lived on their farms in the mountain valleys for centuries. Do not rob these people of their homeland! The Alps belong to us all, so stop thinking only of your own countries, and think, instead, in European terms. Remember that the Alps are our common possession, and that we want to protect them for the benefit of all. I would like to thank the Commissioner for thinking in pan-European terms, and I implore my fellow-Members of this House to do as the Council has done; only a short space of time is involved. And, Mr Jarzembowski, all our mountains are topped by crosses, and, although I am seventy years old, I still keep going up them, and the next time I do I will say the Our Father for you, in the hope that the Holy Ghost will enlighten you. (Vigorous applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it does not need to be repeated that this is an historic day, for this House at any rate. My group, too, sees the enlargement of the European Union as an historic opportunity, and a large majority of us will be endorsing Mr Brok's report. It is not entirely clear to me why you, Mr Haarder, like Mrs Malmström just now, spoke in terms of reunification. What is apparent to me from a reading of European history is that this continent has never actually been united. What is now underway is made all the greater an achievement by the fact that it involves uniting this continent for the very first time. I do not want to sound too discordant a note, but I do at least want to mention three problematic aspects that lead me to be somewhat dissatisfied with the report, despite the general approval it enjoys. For a start, I find it regrettable that nearly all the amendments relating to the great social and employment problems engendered in the candidate countries by enlargement and the processes of transformation have been rejected. Too little attention is paid to these issues even in practical policy-making. Secondly, my group continues to be dissatisfied with the way in which, in contrast to earlier accessions to the EU, there is no full guarantee that the new Member States and their citizens will enjoy equal rights from the word go. I know, Commissioner, that you have done a great deal for the public at large, but the egoism of a number of governments has prevented essential work from being done. I am well aware of the difficulties involved, but I find it rather problematic when legal and financial discrimination are not prevented from the very outset in a process of enlargement described as an historic task. Thirdly, we regret the fact that proposals for further efforts in border regions have not been incorporated in the report. It is my belief that the governments responsible in particular, and quite possibly also the Commission, are doing too little in these regions to give real support as extensive changes take effect. The possibility cannot at present be excluded that at least some of these regions will become more like enlargement's transit zones. Quite apart from the practicalities of the problem, I therefore again call on the Commission and the governments to do everything possible to make what are at present border regions workshops for European integration and enable them to experience its positive effects on people and society, as the former border regions such as for example the Saarland, Lorraine, and Luxembourg so emphatically did.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we European citizens are concerned about maritime safety and we Galicians in particular, since we directly suffered the extremely serious accidents we are all so aware of. The consequences of these accidents oblige us to speed up the adoption of maritime safety measures of all types and to seek consensus between the various political groups and between the institutions – Commission, Parliament and Council. We must therefore prevent long legislative procedures in order to respond to the citizens’ demands, reaching agreements at first reading preventing the need to go to the conciliation procedure. I congratulate the Commission on the proposal it has presented to us, and our rapporteur on her report, which has achieved unanimity, which is significant, as is the support we are giving to the amendments introduced in relation to the extension to other types of ship, such as those transporting particularly dangerous goods, to those preventive measures of all types, and to global agreements within the world framework of the IMO, as well as with the United States. This debate is therefore timely but, I would insist, we must remember that, if we agree on the fundamental issue, as we do in general terms, we must also agree on the form and the procedures, and act with the greatest diligence, as has been reiterated here. We must not waste a single second on political discussions which extend the legislative procedures on such sensitive issues. The IMO measures within the framework of the SOLAS Agreement are therefore welcome, as will the MARPOL measures be, which not only enhance the safety of ships and ports but which also provide for the imposition of criminal sanctions, which we will have to wait to be debated and approved in this House. The European Parliament must be on the front line in this fight and I hope that the recently created temporary committee will continue with this consensus and provide the best possible resources and instruments in this fight and lead it on behalf of the European Union at world level.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what I want to say about Turkey is that I regard the Copenhagen criteria as a fundamental precondition, and believe that they are indeed, as regards the protection of human and minority rights, not being fulfilled in any sense in which we understand them or should understand them, as a community of values. I am thinking here of the Kurds, but also of the religious minorities. To Mr Ceyhun, who spoke earlier, I would say that there was much in his speech that I did not understand. I am sure that he was not merely tolerated; we enjoyed very good neighbourly relations, being immediate neighbours here in Strasbourg. Such neighbourliness can be built on, and I believe that a privileged partnership constitutes a third way between members and non-members of the European Union and those who have a privileged relationship with the European Union and must also have a space for the future. We have different conceptions of the future of the European Union; ours is that this Europe, this European Union of ours, must have borders, and that is why we conclude special agreements with our immediate neighbours. With this in mind, I believe that Turkey, be it for reasons of history, geography or culture, would not fit in as a direct member of the European Union, and I hope that we will go on along this third way with the courage it deserves. Here too, the Commission and the Council should exercise greater imagination, rather than simply pointing out that the way is, in any case, already mapped out.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would just like to draw your attention to something that concerns today’s agenda. We decided on Monday that the Council’s statement on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Geneva Convention was to be postponed. I would just like to clarify that we will only be talking about the other items on this agenda today, and not about the Geneva Convention. This item has been postponed until the next part-session in March. It was erroneously included in today’s agenda.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is about Wednesday. I cannot find on Wednesday’s agenda any vote on the calendar of part-sessions. In the last part-session, we had a vote on an illegal calendar, and I wanted to ask you why this vote is not being repeated. It is the case that a number of Members are considering appealing against this decision. As we have a deadline to keep to, I wanted to ask when a lawful vote on our calendar of part-sessions is to take place.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Laeken Council will sadly rank amongst the less impressive meetings of its kind. It was a missed opportunity and a serious disappointment, like the Belgian Presidency which preceded it. Why? Not just because of the consistency of the Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, who for us emerges as an endearing Harry Worth-type figure on the European political stage. We seem to have passed over his proclamation that the British-led UN peacekeeping force in Afghanistan was to become an EU body. The key problem is that for this Presidency these last months have been a painful learning curve. The excessive aspirations of July, often misguided like ideas for a new Euro-tax on all EU citizens or a Tobin tax on capital movements, found themselves on a collision course with reality. At Laeken the EU's new rapid reaction force was declared operational even though, critically, its access to NATO assets is currently blocked. Indeed, the precise relationship between the force and NATO remains ambiguous. The European arrest warrant enjoyed a particularly painful birth with some uncertainty about when, or if ever, it will apply in Italy. The attempt to assign sites for various new EU bodies also descended into farce. Little progress was made at Laeken, or indeed, throughout the Belgian Presidency, on the competitiveness agenda in Europe. The Lisbon strategy, which has been grounded since Stockholm, now faces a moment of truth in Barcelona if we are truly to become the dynamic knowledge-based economy that is sought. Finally let me turn to the Declaration itself. The text acknowledges the EU's failings in terms of democracy, transparency and closeness to people but seems to come up yet again with solutions on federal lines. These options represent the wrong route for Europe. The Convention should learn the lessons of the last decade, reject ambitions for a European super-state, and focus on modest and intelligent reforms which can really deliver a Europe that works.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I had asked the administration to ensure that the Members of the Charter Convention be officially notified to Parliament and I was assured that this would be done. Then, contrary to the information given to me by the administration, the President in the Chair yesterday morning – it was not you – did not announce the Members of the Convention here orally. I then asked the President in the Chair to rectify this, which he later did, and announced the ordinary Members of the Convention. However, I felt that it was important that both the ordinary Members and the deputy Members should be announced and entered in yesterday’s Minutes, so that the whole House and the public know who the Members and deputy Members are. The Minutes today only contain the names of the ordinary Members, as announced here yesterday. My request is that, as the names of the deputies can probably no longer be inserted, they should be notified to Parliament and to the public in the Minutes of today’s sitting which will be distributed tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, like all my group I essentially welcome this proposal and the opportunity to speak on its behalf. As my friend Mr Lannoye said, it is, if not 'too little, too late', at any rate 'not very much and rather late'. But it is a step in the right direction and it is very important to establish the polluter pays principle. After all, most human activities have some impact on the environment. The issue is who tidies up afterwards – the person who causes it or somebody else? Like many members of this House I have received powerful representations from local authorities in my own constituency in Scotland, saying that if this directive is not carried local authorities and other public bodies will continue to have to deal, out of general tax revenues, with the problems which other people ought either to have prevented in the first place or be dealing with at present. It is worth reminding ourselves that the polluter pays principle is only half the story. The fact of the matter is that those who pollute are engaged in economic activities producing goods or services which other people want to buy, presumably at the price at which they are offered. If the polluter does not pay, the problem is that the price is too low and consumers get a kind of a free lunch for which they then have to pay afterwards in their capacity as taxpayers. We must try to ensure, therefore, that we have a regime which is genuinely directed at those producers and activities which can take better precautions and adequately insure against liability so that the pressure of insurance premium liabilities and the cost of insurance premiums reward those who are most careful and push up prices for those who are least careful, thereby creating a virtuous circle. With regard to that issue, I have had much doubt throughout the debates about the so-called state-of-the-art and permit defences, as there is a rationale which says that people should be able to work closely to the terms of, for example, a carefully designed permit and thereby guarantee themselves against liability. On the whole though, I have come to the view expressed in Amendment No 104 that these matters should be treated as matters of litigation rather than matters of exemption, which is a reasonable compromise to reach, so we very strongly support the directive on condition that the relevant amendments are carried.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, allow me to address you on a point of order. It is about the refusal of photographs from Kazakhstan, the region where nuclear tests were carried out. Last night, we found out that Parliament itself turned down a few of those photographs in that exhibition because they are reported to be shocking. Unfortunately, those photographs mirror reality, and although that reality is shocking, as MEPs we should not be patronised, and we have the right – and even the duty – to learn the truth about that reality. Consequently, I would like to submit a protest on behalf of my group and on behalf of many people who attended the Kazakhstan exhibition yesterday. A second reason for dissatisfaction is the fact that yesterday, a visitor, Mr Tsamaraint Nauchap from the Shuar people in Ecuador, was refused entry. This Ecuadorial Indian came here as an envoy of his people, accompanied by the signs of his dignity, namely a small wooden spear measuring less than two metres. The man was not allowed entry to the House. We were not allowed to talk to him, apparently because he was armed. I considered it to be extremely humiliating for this man to be asked to lay down the signs of his dignity, which are sacred to him. Consequently, he was unable to visit us, and the MEPs who wanted to receive him had to do so outside our Chamber and outside the Parliament building. This is totally outrageous, particularly since it has been confirmed that this is in accordance with a normal code of conduct. I am calling for a review of this rule of conduct.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I should also like to congratulate the Commissioner and the Commission on this proposal. If I understand you correctly, however, this Sixth Framework Research Programme contains far fewer specific programmes than the fifth and I should like to ask you why? What are the reasons? We therefore have fewer specific programmes for the sectoral themes. Up until now, we had one for biotechnology, one for energy, one for the environment, and so on. In future that is all going to be under one roof. Are you not afraid this will make the framework research programme less visible? Is there not also a danger that the lobbies representing various professional groups and sectors will be less involved in the Sixth Framework Programme because they are not clear what area it falls under? My question is: Can you give us the reasons why you have fewer specific programmes this time than last?

Political group: PSE
The ability of Member States in the European Union to decide their own policy on requiring visas for travel to those states and to change it, as and when required, for security or other reasons would be adversely affected by this measure. Visas are necessary and useful tools in providing controls. British Conservatives cannot, therefore, accept this proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE