GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Treaty of Nice is obviously open to a wide range of interpretations. It is positive that the informal barriers to enlargement have been cleared away and that the Union is now constitutionally ready for its important task of uniting Europe. Now we hope for a clearer timetable and preferably a date at the summit in Gothenburg in a couple of weeks’ time. There are, of course, major problems with the Treaty: it makes the decision-making process no simpler, no more efficient and scarcely any more comprehensible to our citizens. It also leaves much to be desired in democratic respects. Far too many decisions will continue to be made behind closed doors in the Council – without the democratic control, inspection or participation of Parliament. The method for the Intergovernmental Conference is rather reminiscent of that for choosing a new pope. The delegates are locked away in negotiations for several days whilst the world outside waits impatiently for the white smoke, a sign that a compromise has been reached. During that time nobody knows what is happening. However, now the next treaty is to be prepared differently – together with the citizens. It is important to remember these fine speeches when the plans are being made for Laeken. Perhaps it will be a convention after all. After all, it is no secret that the majority in this chamber advocate that in any case. It is the most open and democratic way of preparing proposals. However, now there are rumours that it will be a convention without government representatives. So what will it be? A talking shop, an alibi that the ministers then ride roughshod over? It is not a good solution! It is also time to turn away from Nice and look to the future. We are doing this in the European Parliament as well, possibly not so much today, but we shall do so. Some Heads of Government are also doing so. Moreover, I hope that more Heads of Government and ministers will participate in the debate on the future of Europe. The Foreign Minister spoke of ‘the term federalism’ and the different feelings that it invokes. This is true, and the substance is of course more important than the term itself. Federalism – with the different interpretations that it may be given – is, however, a vision of a more democratic Europe. Different visions of the European project are essential to the European debate, so that citizens gradually find out what issues they are to take a position on.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first of all I should like to thank the rapporteurs on these important issues. I shall just take a few minutes to comment on the proposal for a Council regulation on the new COM for olive oil, first thanking Mr Jové Peres for the competence and willingness he has shown, which have led to the considerable understanding of our Committee. The conditions were not right for a thorough reform and so we have chosen to bring forward the introduction of some important rules allowing this sector to face the new challenges posed by the World Trade Organisation, the liberalisation of the markets and the reform of the common agricultural policy. This has been the driving force that has led us to identify specific rules and requests for new aid. In particular, for us it is important to give the origin of the oil as the place where the olives were harvested and not where it was produced. We have the duty of transparency and of coherence with the principles of traceability: it is a matter of courtesy to the producers and the consumers. I hope the Council will approve our position and issue an order to revise Regulation 2815. Equally worthy of consideration are the ban on blending olive oil with other oils or fats and the incentive to the producer organisation to increase market supply capacity, because this is the paradox to overcome: a rising demand for consumption of this precious commodity and a fall in prices. With these measures we think the whole sector can be sustained, and I am pleased to finish with a particular comment on the method we have used, that is to say the meeting of Parliament with the whole sector, which has led to these points which I hope we will approve today in this House and which I hope may guide the final decision of the Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have a responsibility towards two parties: on the one hand, the young people who took part – commendably – in the military operations in Bosnia and Kosovo and, of course, their families, and, on the other, the beneficiaries of those peace-keeping missions, the Balkan peoples. It is true, the direct or indirect relationship between the use of depleted uranium shells and the cases of leukaemia, which are multiplying, has not yet been proved indisputably, although the link appears more than likely, but these cases exist and are so numerous as to justify the greatest concern. It is therefore right to pursue, with a coordinated approach, all the scientific investigations necessary to clarify the impact of this type of arm on health and the environment, but, in the meantime, it is also right to apply the precautionary principle, which has never been so appropriate as on this occasion, and that is why it is urgent and vital to impose a moratorium.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we as the are in favour of enlargement. This is not so much because we would like to have a bigger market, but because the European Union appears to be capable of guaranteeing peace and stability, albeit within its own borders, but not outside of those, unfortunately. It could serve as a model for conflict prevention, in other words, and we would like to see this model enlarged. Mr Brok and the co-rapporteurs, whom we would like to congratulate, have demonstrated in this report the enormous progress that has been made, but unfortunately, many candidate countries are still facing shortcomings in terms of administrative capacity and independent jurisdiction, but also in terms of independent police and independent media. Mafia and corruption still remain a curse. Many countries have regional differences in fighting these, for which no instruments are actually available. We would draw your attention particularly to human rights and minorities. One of these minorities who live in abject misery are, of course, the Roma in various candidate countries. They often live in appalling conditions with poor housing, a high level of unemployment and low educational standards. Although plans are in preparation in most countries, the effective involvement of this minority often remains a problem. The positive regard for the Roma culture could be a key to the emancipation and integration of that community. Accountability of the Roma and their participation in the implementation of the projects which are set up by the European Union itself should be the norm. Furthermore, the Roma are, of course, a European nation without a state, and they are, as such, our joint responsibility. But other minorities too often experience a lack of appreciation and recognition of their identities. Their fate is often heavily marked by history. There are scars and wounds that have not healed. One of the consequences is the criticism of some of the effects which the Beneš decrees have had, to which also Commissioner Verheugen referred. Accession to the Union can offer minorities hope for the future in which borders become less important and peoples can join forces across the borders. Finally, a whole host of small countries will be joining after the accession, and this will place the need for a new view of peoples without a state and regional participation in a new light.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, it is natural gas that will meet the European Union’s growing need for energy in the near future. Reserves in relatively nearby areas – the North Sea and North Africa – are only sufficient to meet needs for the next 10 or 20 years, and gas will have to be imported from the east. The route of the gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea area to Western Europe is a matter of power politics. The EU’s position must not be too NATO-dependent concerning this. We have, above all, to safeguard our own interests. We have to remember that the world’s largest gas reserves are in Russia. The best security policy will be for the EU to participate in investment in Russia’s gas resources in exchange for long-term supply contracts. Connected with the problems of liberalising the gas market is the fact that gas market actors are only interested in buying and selling gas, but not in producing gas for investment. The market runs on too short a time scale, and that is why measures need to be taken by the Member States to guarantee long-term supply contracts. There are no such contracts being made in the markets. Gas cannot be stored in the same way as oil. For that reason modes of transportation and the needs of secure storage with respect to oil and gas differ from one another. Responsibility for the security of supply of both oil and gas lies with the Member States, and this responsibility cannot be transferred to market forces. Our group supports the strains of criticism the rapporteurs direct at the Commission’s proposals. We quite understand the calls for Mr Karlsson’s report to go back to the committee.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Fernando Pérez Royo’s report is on a proposal for a Council directive to ensure effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the Community. Shivers ran down my spine, Mr President, and my hair stood on end when I read the title of this report: effective taxation of savings income. Of course, it is right to pay taxes and, as this directive says, it is right to inform States that their citizens have come here, for example, and that they must be taxed on the interest on any savings they may have, but should we not decide once and for all not to make people who save pay interest or tax to governments just because they have been saving money? Saving is a very good thing. It was with great difficulty that I voted for the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, developments in the Middle East have taken place according to the motto, “two steps forward and one step back”. Nonetheless, it is true to say that we have come a long way since the beginning of the 1970s when I first became interested in the problem. At that time, the Palestinian people and the PLO were completely marginalised. The only people who took them even slightly seriously were the European . I must point out that it was only when the right-of-centre Netanyahu lost the election that the peace process got under way again. Even if there are grounds for optimism now, it has to be said that there are still a number of unsolved problems. There is the problem of the status of Jerusalem. There is the problem of international contact for the Palestinians via Gaza and that of an international airport on the West Bank and, not least, the question of resources for migrants. There will now be the important task of keeping both parties on the track of peaceful development. I think that the EU can play an active role if it is prepared to use economic incentives and keep a careful watch on whether the agreement is being adhered to. This will be a form of development in which human rights can be strengthened on both sides and in which my friends on the Israeli may perhaps see their dream fulfilled. Everyone is entitled to a homeland!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Last Saturday, Mr President, I was a guest at the Transnational Radical Party Congress in Geneva. While I was there, I listened very carefully to the Chechen Foreign Minister, Ilyas Akhmadov, who, like myself was a guest at the Congress too. I was already aware of the tragedy taking place in Chechnya and the suffering of the Chechen people, so many thousands of whom have died, but the Foreign Minister’s speech further convinced me how important it is to remember all the people who cannot obtain independence through self-determination and who suffer such severe violations of rights. I therefore congratulate the European Parliament on adopting the resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to table an oral amendment to the effect that the last sentence of paragraph 120 should be changed, because the situation has meanwhile changed. It should read as follows: starting with complete freedom of movement. Freedom of expression and religion on the part of the Venerable Thich Quang Do – I hope I have pronounced this correctly – released in June 2003 but still subject to police control, and the reinstatement of the legal status of the banned United Buddhist Church.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it appears that Enceladus is furious with Greece and Turkey and, being his inept self when it comes to dialogue and bargaining, he flew into a fit of catastrophic rage, scattering death, sorrow, pain, desperation and havoc around the two countries. The catastrophic bible-like scenes in Turkey stretch over some 60,000 square kilometres, almost the size of Belgium and Denmark put together – an expanse which has affected the lives of 15 million people. More than 15,000 people lost their lives in the earthquake. Every building within 80 to 90 kilometres of the epicentre of the earthquake is in ruins. According to statistics, this region once produced 30% to 35% of Turkey’s GNP and provided employment for thousands of workers. The purely economic repercussions of the earthquakes are great and it would seem difficult, if not impossible, to expect Turkey to overcome all that without any generous help from outside, without our active support. In Greece, the destruction is not so wide-spread but the cost in human lives is grave with 138 dead, 3 seriously injured, and approximately 100,000 left homeless. The material cost is huge and the earthquakes cost both Greece and Turkey dearly. One particular part of this cost, and perhaps the most tragic, concerns the number of human beings who lost their lives, the number of families who were destroyed and the psychological shock suffered by the whole of the regions’ population, who are now filled with dread at the possibility of another earthquake. The people in those regions have had to summon spiritual strength to overcome the individual, family and financial disaster and to start building again from scratch. Nevertheless, every cloud has a silver lining. The earthquakes seem to have destroyed houses on the one hand and built bridges between Greece and Turkey on the other. The earthquakes laid the unique foundations for co-operation between the two countries. The pain and the disaster have taught us that we can only cope with national disasters through co-operation and peaceful co-existence. George Papandreou and Mr Cem, the Foreign Ministers for Greece and Turkey respectively, finally decided to include the issue of Greek-Turkish co-operation in dealing with natural disasters on the agenda for dialogue between Athens and Ankara. It appears, as the speaker said previously, that every tragedy has a cathartic effect. However, in closing, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to return once again to a suggestion which was also put forward by other speakers, that is the need to create a European research centre for the systematic study, research and implementation of new preventative methods for earthquakes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the President of the Council says that she always appreciates the trips she makes to the Parliament, so it is rather extraordinary that she failed during her speech to respond to any of the proposals of Parliament for the IGC. This rather reinforces the press reports, which give cause for concern, that the European Council has chosen a narrow agenda for the IGC and a merely voluntary charter. If that is so, it says a lot about the way the Union is squaring up for the challenge of enlargement. An IGC that failed to amend the way the treaties can be revised in future and in policy sectors to soften them would be an IGC that threatened to paralyse the Union when it tries to modernise itself following the accession of new Member States. An IGC that failed to grant the citizen improved access to the European Court means a charter will be more of a public relations exercise than a powerful re-definition of European citizenship. And a Union that is frightened to reinforce its liberal and parliamentary character will be an unattractive Union for the acceding Member States and an unreliable player upon the world stage. Where Europe stops should not be a question of geography but of liberal values and democratic practices, clearly defined and brightly illuminated so that the candidate countries know where the European journey will bring them.

Political group: ELDR
In assessing the question of whether or not to grant the Commission discharge, the decision must be based upon what actually occurred during the financial year concerned, in this case in the course of 1997. In our Group, we find it hard to see how the financial administration for 1997 was in any crucial way better than that for 1996. In that year, we voted against granting discharge. As a result, we shall vote against granting discharge for 1997, too. We think that this picture of ours is confirmed by the examination carried out by the Court of Auditors. It is both good and necessary that reforms have been promised. So far, the promises which have been made are still, however, to be fulfilled, especially where transparency is concerned. We are therefore going to vote in favour of the demands for reforms which are presented in the resolution, but against the granting of discharge.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like my protest at the delay in voting to be recorded in the Minutes. It was scheduled for 5.30 p.m. and there has been no explanation whatsoever. This shows a lack of respect for this Parliament and each of the Members who were here at the time set. It could only be justified by a case of force majeure such as the President having a heart attack. If this is not the case, it seems an unjustifiable lack of respect towards the Members. (Loud applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, in the course of one minute I should like to point out to you six paths to be worked on during the next legislative period. Firstly, the European coastguards. Secondly, seafarers’ living and working conditions, which must be as good as possible on board. Thirdly, flags of convenience, making every effort to drive them out, and strengthening our position within the International Maritime Organisation. Fourthly, implementation of the regulations relating to port reception facilities. Fifthly, work on the concept of freedom of the seas, which is an old concept about which seafarers care but which will have to be studied carefully. We no longer transport wood, wine and stones but much more dangerous materials. Sixthly, ensure greater traceability of petroleum products. You know that the techniques for doing this exist, a sort of petroleum DNA, and when degassing is carried out or ballast tanks are emptied, this is a new lead for detecting the culprits. There, Commissioner, you have a number of points on which it must be possible to work during the legislative period that is about to start.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur. He has worked very hard on this report and it is a good one. The report and the underlying regulation seek to establish clearer and more transparent rules for state aid for employment. Streamlined procedures for Member States wishing to aid employment schemes are to be welcomed and sensitivity to local circumstances is also desirable. The report welcomes and expresses support for the state aid register, which the British Conservatives have made a priority. It is vitally important that we keep track of the various Member States and their record on state aid. In terms of general principles, we believe that it is vitally important to restrict the areas where state aid can be given. I am not sure whether we would go as far as Mr Monti – I believe he has referred to state aids in the past as evil – but we certainly believe that it is necessary to restrict state aid in order to maintain economic efficiency and economic prosperity and a level playing field between companies in different Member States. Having said that, this report and the regulation acknowledge that certain state aids are acceptable and indeed desirable in relation to employment schemes. We are, however, very wary about the degree of extension that can be accepted even in this case, because of our suspicion of state aids. But we believe the Commission has drawn the line at a sensible point. That is also reflected in the report. I would not go as far as Amendment No 1, as put forward by Mr Berenguer Fuster. In particular paragraph (a) of Amendment No 1, which seems to specifically condemn temporary as opposed to permanent contracts, is not appropriate and should not be supported by the House. I ask the House to remember that state aid, in this context, is rather like a Band-Aid or a sticking plaster being applied to a gaping wound. State aid for employment, where it is permitted, as appropriate, by this regulation, can never actually solve Europe's unemployment problems. It is appropriate to permit government state aid for employment schemes in restricted circumstances, but the real way to tackle the 18 million unemployed in Europe, to give people genuine job opportunities, is by labour market reform, by producing structural and economic reform and labour market flexibility, making it easier to hire people. That is the way to deal with the serious and unacceptably high level of unemployment in the European Union. So we accept this as a pragmatic and sensible measure. Both the regulation and the report make sensible proposals, but it is vitally important that we address the key issue, which is labour market flexibility and economic reform.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would thank the Commissioner for his answer. If I have understood all this correctly, a Swede does not need to carry any ID document showing that he is a Swedish citizen, in spite of Article 45’s stating that it must be checked whether the traveller is a citizen of a Schengen country. Consequently, Swedish citizens are at present exempt from that rule when they travel in other Nordic countries. Is that correct?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, along with the entire communications infrastructure and the media, the rail network is crucial to turning the European Union into a political entity without frontiers. This is as much the case now as it has been in the development of modern states over the last 200 years. These services are needed for economic progress and modernisation, just as the measure of extending the high speed network is also required, at present, in order to dynamise and revitalise productive activity. The rail package, therefore, is not simply a new tool enabling private companies to do business as quickly as possible, but is rather a tool for building the road to political, economic and social integration throughout the Union. My group rejects Mr Jarzembowski’s report, since his approach runs counter to the one outlined above, but will vote in favour of the Sterckx report on safety, the Ainardi report on interoperability, and the Savary report on the European Railway Agency, which are compatible with it. For me, as a Galician, and for all inhabitants of nations located far from the geographical centre of Europe, these European Parliament decisions should, of course, be a way for us to gain access to high-speed communication with the whole of Europe. The plan for investment in infrastructure currently being developed by the Commission should share this aim, bearing in mind above all the fact that railways are kinder to nature and also more favourable to social welfare than any other transport network.

Political group: Verts-ALE