GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am pleased to be able to tell you that the British Conservatives will be voting against this proposal tomorrow. We think it is wrong in principle to take people’s money through taxation in order to synthesise an artificial sense of European identity. Many of my constituents, and, I dare say, even some of the constituents of the honourable Members who will be voting for the resolution tomorrow, would be horrified to learn that their taxes were subsidising European political parties whose programmes they might fundamentally oppose. Furthermore, we believe that the bill introduces a dangerous principle of political discrimination. It discriminates overtly against some parties on the basis of their beliefs and covertly against all parties which see themselves principally in national terms and are accordingly reluctant to form trans-European blocks. So much, perhaps, will not surprise you. I accept that the British Conservative Party is in a minority in this Chamber in championing the primacy of national democracy. I know that most Members of this House believe that a working democracy at European Union level is feasible and desirable: that is a perfectly honourable position, but I would appeal to such Members to ask themselves whether these proposals are truly democratic. In a pure democracy there should be as few restrictions as possible on how people choose their representatives. Having been elected, politicians should be free to associate in any combinations they wish. They should be able to express their opinions openly and they should be allowed to raise funds through any method that their voters will tolerate. Laying down legal criteria for recognition dilutes democracy and infantilises the voter. If a politician expresses noxious views, it should be up to his constituents to remove him, not the courts, let alone his political opponents. If he is thought to be financially dependent on some vested interest, then that too should be a matter for his voters, not the authorities. The bill before the House tonight traduces these principles. It goes so far as to introduce a mechanism where parties which are at odds with the political convictions of the majority may be disqualified, a measure surely more in keeping with the old Warsaw Pact than with the democratic Europe to which we are notionally devoted. In a free political market place, good ideas will triumph, not because bad ones are suppressed, but because people are able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. If our constituents are not able to make that choice for themselves, their moral capacity is diminished and a measure of their freedom is lost. Democracy is not just a slogan, a trite word to attach to any idea of which we happen to approve. It has a very specific meaning and it is incompatible with the measure before us tonight. True Europeans, honest democrats and sincere lovers of freedom should vote against it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the first EU-Africa summit was an important event and had a great deal of potential for taking meaningful steps to reduce the marginalisation of African countries. So it is a pity that a number of things prevented that potential from being fully realised. Firstly, neither the European Parliament nor the EU-ACP Joint Assembly was invited to participate in the summit. Secondly, it is very sad that civil society was not able to have a greater input into the meeting. The NGOs from the EU and African countries took this summit very seriously and it was a missed opportunity not to engage in more meaningful dialogue with them. Civil society has a key role to play in Africa’s development process. Finally, this meeting could have resulted in a far-reaching action plan of concrete actions. What we have is a plan full of warm words and good intentions but short on firm commitments, in particular on trade issues. While it is nice to recall the EU’s important decision to grant duty-free access for essentially all products, it would have been even more significant to have gone beyond the famous 'essentially all' to include those products of real importance to the poorest countries, such as agricultural goods. Finally – sadly – commodity prices were conspicuous by their absence from this agenda. A majority of African countries are overwhelmingly dependent on just one or two commodities for the bulk of their foreign exchange earnings. Until action is taken to reverse the fall of commodity prices, poverty in Africa will not be properly addressed.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner Patten, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow members have already picked up on the main points. Permit me, therefore, to address just a few aspects. The European Union has achieved a number of successes, mainly thanks to Commissioner Lamy, who really has achieved some resounding successes. But this also applies of course to the United States, and the same will apply to the other countries due to enter into negotiations. In my view, one important point will be not just be to help China integrate into the world economy – it has already more or less done that – but also to help this country take a further step towards the general democratisation of its society. We have been able to follow what is at stake in all the discussions, in the leading world press and in the lively debate between economists on the matter, but the crucial question is: what will actually happen once China becomes a member of the WTO? Will it mark the beginning of a further opening of society? Will it mark the beginning of a new round in politics? Will it result in institutional reforms in China? And, of course, will there also be a further opening of the market? These are the really crucial and exciting questions which we face. I am sure that it is in the minds of all the honourable members who have spoken and I believe that it is my group’s opinion, that we should use this opening and the integration of China into the World Trade Organisation to help it make a quantum leap. However, we must not fool ourselves, we must not harbour any illusions, and we must insist that the WTO rules are in fact upheld, because this is, of course, the crux of the matter. This is where we really will have to get down to brass tacks during further discussions with the Commission. Because the package negotiated is extremely comprehensive and includes highly critical and sensitive sectors. Critical voices are already being heard on the part of industry to the effect that success is all well and good, but ex-post control of implementation is equally important. I think that we will be able to count on good collaboration here, so that this form of implementation can be monitored by Parliament and Parliament can be kept abreast of current developments. One further point which I should like to address, and which I think is highly important, is our hope that with the opening of the market and with the further opening of society in China, greater respect will be given to human rights. Human rights are a fundamental element of a modern society. I think that this a point which we cannot allow to be sidelined, even in talks, even if they do not form a substantial part of purely economic negotiations. I think that you have always set particular store by this. Nonetheless, it is important that this point be reiterated constantly. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
With regard to the proposal for a Council regulation fixing certain sugar prices and the standard quality of beet for the 2000/01 marketing year, we would make the following point. The reconstruction of Kosovo is an important issue for the EU and something we wholeheartedly support. The extra resources required for Kosovo should be obtained from general reductions in subsidies for the whole of the common agricultural policy and not only through reductions within the sugar sector.

Political group: ELDR
Can I say firstly that I was astonished by the Minister's response to my honourable friend on the subject of human rights in Egypt. If Europe does not stand for human rights then I do not know what it does stand for. I would like to test him, if I may, on Tibet because Tibet has now been illegally occupied by China for many years. Does the Minister agree that no matter how many years before Tibet regains its freedom, no European state should recognise the illegal actions by the Chinese Government in Tibet and that the transfer of tens of thousands of non-Tibetan people into Amdo is illegal under international law? The World Bank has now recognised this and I understand is abandoning its so-called Western Poverty Project proposal. The British Government has not yet withdrawn its support and all I ask the President-in-Office to do is to remind all Member State governments on the Council – including Britain – that they must not endorse or be seen to endorse illegal acts and abuses of human rights and national rights against the people and the nation of Tibet.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I very much welcome this e-content programme and should like to refer to two aspects of it. First of all, digital technology reminds us that it is high time we dug up a treasure that lies buried within all of us and made use of it in this digital age. I refer to the cultural diversity of Europe, and we have the opportunity to safeguard it for future generations with the aid of new technology. Digital content demonstrates that Europe is not only an economic community; it is also bound by common values, and it is our desire and our duty to use this programme to preserve our common treasure for future generations in a highly competitive world. The programme therefore presents us with two opportunities: firstly it can help us to secure existing jobs and to create new ones, and secondly it offers us a unique opportunity to exploit to the full that cultural diversity which our language barriers have always prevented us from sharing and to ensure that it benefits everyone. Let me turn now to a second aspect of the programme. This programme relies to an unprecedented extent on public-private partnerships. In the cultural sphere, it is particularly important that we devise new forms of cooperation between the public and private sectors. That is why I am campaigning very vigorously for Parliament and its committees – the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport – to undertake a thorough analysis of the potential effects of this new form of cooperation between public and private funding bodies on the preservation of cultural diversity in Europe. May I conclude by thanking all those whose support has helped to ensure that the programme provides for the reallocation of funds in favour of linguistic and cultural measures. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I agree with the report by my colleague and fellow countryman Rosa Miguélez Ramos. I agree with her when she says that fishing in international waters is crucial to the European Union, to the fisheries sector itself, but also to international policy and economic and social cooperation with other countries. The European Union’s real policy, however, is not in accordance with this view and nor is fishing in Community waters. The failed reform of the common fisheries policy highlighted this unfortunate situation. In this context, I have to say that my country, Galicia, is one of the major victims: in Community waters; we suffer (...) at the hands of certain countries and fleets, in international waters, we suffer from the contempt of the Commission and the Council as a result of this international policy. The Commission services even lack the necessary human, budgetary and material resources. Even fishing on the continental shelf and aquaculture are today, as always, seriously damaged, affected by disasters occurring on Galicia’s coasts, such as that of the Prestige. This is a situation that must be resolved as a matter of urgency.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Despite the objective of increasing productivity, investment and employment levels in the Union, the Commission’s broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and the Community are a set of negative guidelines: continuing budgetary restrictions which go beyond the requirements of the Stability Pact, wage restrictions, tax reforms for the benefit of the better off, further disintegration of the labour market and the crucial importance of competition policy, which brings pressure to bear on the principles of social justice. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Policy, despite the sensitivity of its rapporteur, Mr Katiforis, has maintained the spirit of the Commission’s recommendation, which is why I shall vote against the motion for a resolution. The Union should promote a policy which combines quantitative development with a reduction in working times, increased productivity, tax reforms to support society and development and the modernisation, not the eradication, of the public sector.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, one of the problems with the banana issue, it seems to me, is that it has become rather emotive. I see my job as a Member of the European Parliament as not just to look after those banana producers within the European Union but all the people in Europe. I understand how people feel about changes to the system but, as I said, I want to look after everyone within the European Union as a whole. If, in that process, I can safeguard the interests of our ACP countries then that is all to the good, but I believe that it is important that we safeguard and look to the welfare of European citizens. We seem sometimes to have lost sight of this fact. I am not one to welcome the way in which the USA has implemented these draconian measures, but it is desperately important that we get a settlement. In my constituency I have industries that are being forced out of business. Jobs are being lost within the European Union because of 100% tariffs on products. I have received many letters about the fact that it is an emotive issue. It may well be to some of our southern Members even more emotive. Well, I just say to them, this is about real people. It is about real emotions and about real jobs. People are being forced out of business because of the Americans and therefore I say it is important that we accept the ruling of the WTO. Either we are in a club or we are out of it and it is particularly important that we accept this. As I said just now, I never accepted the way the Americans acted but it is too late now to deal with that. Therefore, I call upon this House to take a decision tomorrow and I support the proposals by Mr Vatenen, who is speaking later.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we can take it as read, on the basis of current scientific research, that foot and mouth disease is, of all viral infections, one of the most dangerous to our stocks of cloven-hoofed animals. The situation is that this dangerous animal disease spreads in an explosive manner if it is introduced in unvaccinated stocks. We saw that happen recently, when foot and mouth disease broke out in Great Britain. We also know what damage then ensues. It is irrelevant whether foot and mouth disease has broken out or is present in South Korea or in another country of the world. The mobility of people and goods, which can be transferred from one place to another in the shortest conceivable time, means that the risk is always present. So I ask the Commission whether the prophylactic resources are sufficient to avert this danger in the long term. We know that the European strategy for combating animal diseases still has its flaws. The state of knowledge, which must normally increase over time, is unchanged as regards what happens in the absence of vaccination. I ask the Commission whether the attempt should not be made to alter the animal diseases strategy in future, with particular reference to foot and mouth disease, in such a way that prophylaxis is monitored far better. As Mrs Redondo and her predecessors on the floor said, prophylaxis of course begins at the airport or on the train. Prophylaxis is, though, also to a very significant extent, a matter for the individual stock farmer, and I must say, some very worrying things come to light. When I run an open day for visitors to my farm, there is no doubt in my mind; I always see people from the towns running through the stables without taking any steps whatever to prevent the spread of disease. Taking all these things together, I would consider it possible to stop this dangerous disease in its tracks. Let me plainly say here and now that I very much question the assumption on which we have based our actions over the past years, namely that we can stamp it out across the board. So I urge the implementation of a prophylaxis worthy of the name, and I ask the Commission to give an appropriate answer on the subject.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have indeed developed an ambitious programme of work. We in the have great hopes for the planned summit on employment. What the Christian Democrat Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Mr Juncker called for in the run-up to the employment summit in 1997 also applies to the planned special summit in Lisbon. It must not be a literature summit, whereby Juncker was referring to the endless non-binding declarations made by numerous summits. On the contrary, the heads of government achieved a quite specific result under the Luxembourg process, i.e. coordination between employment policy guidelines and national action plans. However, really important successes have failed to materialise since 1997. Above all, there are shortcomings in the practical implementation of the guidelines. The 1999 joint employment report cites a lack of activity by Member States in reforming the tax and social benefit systems and in participation in lifelong learning, together with shortcomings in promoting social partnership to modernise the way in which work is organised. Employment policy has been extremely important to Parliament for many years. Unfortunately, again in 1999, the Council and the heads of government adopted hardly any of our proposals, for example on the so-called European employment package from Cologne or on the Guidelines 2000. I would ask the Portuguese Presidency, as it has announced in its discussion paper: please do better, please take greater account of our positions. New economic impetus, competition and flexibility need to be brought into line with vital demands for social security. The success principle behind the social market economy is the model of the future for Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ten years after the first World Summit for Children, the UN has decided to take stock. In September 2001, on the eve of the summit, our group is naturally tabling a resolution in witness of our commitment, as we have always done. I remember a time when it was difficult to mention the word children in this House. The Dutroux affair had to happen before budget lines could be freed up and a certain number of resolutions passed for our children. We have therefore had some successes. The latest is the reference to children in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and some of us in this House, notably under the leadership of Mary Banotti, have won a few battles. It is therefore important to restate our commitment and determination on the eve of this summit, and we must also dedicate ourselves even more firmly to the cause of children, not just in Europe, but throughout the world, because there are now 600 million children worldwide in families living on less than a dollar a day, facing the real evils of malnutrition, lack of education and lack of health provision. We must mobilise against those evils. To that end, our resolution proposes providing an institutional context to serve children. First, the various decisions we take should be subject to assessment of their impact on policy on children and family policy, secondly, the Commission should have a unit to deal with children’s issues and, thirdly, a special envoy should coordinate policies on children. Finally, Mr President, we think it is important to be in a position to establish a European solidarity fund for the world’s children.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this report is not about creating conflicts, but about harmonisation, and it is not about levelling down, but about equal treatment. To my mind, that is a very important distinction, and one that we should not forget. Gender budgeting does not involve creating separate budgets for men and women, but it does mean working to ensure that funding is distributed fairly and efficiently. Contrary to what we are often told, public budgets are not gender-neutral; in terms of both income and expenditure they have different impacts on men and women. We want to highlight these differences and take account of them. Few people are aware of the impact of budget policy decisions on women in economic, social, and societal terms. That is why we need a budget analysis. Such an analysis means investigating the impact of budgets on women, and on tax systems, that is to say different types of taxation. How do women perceive cuts and how are they affected by them? The answer is: very often more than men are. To make gender budgeting possible, we need transparency, consultation and joint decision-making. A group of highly committed Austrian women have written a book entitled ‘Women, Power and Budgets – Public Finances from a Gender Perspective’. I can recommend this to you as a starting point, and it could also provide a basis for the information leaflet the Commission has promised us. That leaflet should be widely published, easily accessible and go hand in hand with an information campaign. Statements like the ones you have just heard should then be a thing of the past. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, I will use this minute to announce that our group will vote in favour of Amendments Nos 39 and 45 that provide for the bridge over the Straight of Messina to be eliminated from the projected Berlin-Palermo Corridor. When the funding of new public works is being debated, amendments to delete things are quite rare. In general, parliaments propose additional and supplementary features. This increases still further the political significance of the position of our group and of other groups that will vote in favour of these amendments on the grounds that the bridge is economically and environmentally unsustainable. To link Palermo with Berlin, more than a bridge would be needed, Commissioner. A whole railway would be required. In Sicily, trains still run on single tracks, like in the time of King Vittorio Emmanuele. We stress that we do not have any ideological prejudice because of this; we are simply convinced that this is a useless, unrealistic and costly project.

Political group: PSE