GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was possible, at the Helsinki Summit, to get the impression that we really were on the way to having a common European defence policy. The Heads of State or Government of the time set themselves ambitious objectives, and the early months made it possible to assume that these objectives would be achieved relatively speedily and within the time limits envisaged. Looking at matters today, when the deadline is fast approaching, we can see that we are far from achieving these objectives. The current proposal that NATO should deploy and build up a crisis intervention force makes it clear that our American friends have also lost confidence that we Europeans can actually reach the decisions that are required. This should prompt us to make new attempts along these lines, as this European crisis intervention force is, as I see it, an essential step towards securing peace around the European Union. Turning now to the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, I would like to thank Mr Titley for his excellent report. We have common rules on arms exports, we have a common code and a code of conduct, but these rules are interpreted in different ways. We have just seen an export to one Member State prohibited, whilst the same goods were then allowed to be exported to another. This must not be allowed to happen in future; whilst we need common rules, the way in which they are applied must also be common to all. It will probably turn out that any code of conduct will be insufficient, and these rules will also have to be put on a legal footing. When talking about arms exports, we are on the way to a common market in the defence field as well. That is why I consider it important, if we are talking about shipping armaments within the European Union and the export rules unfortunately cease to be applied, for these shipments to be made easier. All 15 EU countries, after all, form a community of values composed of democratic states, and this leads me to believe that such a thing is possible, as are substantial savings, estimated by experts at EUR 240 billion per annum. I would like to conclude by pointing out how important democratic control is in this area. I would therefore like there to be even greater attention paid to this debate. If not only foreign policy, but also defence policy, are under discussion, then the matter at issue is war and peace, about which democratically elected parliaments alone can decide. At present, this burden rests primarily on the shoulders of our counterparts in the national parliaments, but, the more this European policy develops, the more this Parliament will also have to take upon itself this crucial task. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware of the economic, social and strategic importance of the fruit and vegetable sector, particularly for the countries of southern Europe, including Portugal. It is therefore crucial that the Commission draws up a reform of the common organisation of the market in this area, given that the last reform was carried out in 1996. The Commission must put right the most negative aspects of this COM, such as those concerning nuts, the sector's poor relation, and increase the aid ceilings for operational funds for producers’ organisations. It is unfair that a sector such as that of fruit and vegetables should continue to receive only 4% of Community aid when it creates more employment in the European Union than almost any other sector. It is, therefore, crucial that the Commission takes account of the proposals presented last year in the Jové Peres report, which were adopted by this Parliament, specifically in terms of increasing production thresholds and levels of support, in terms of increasing co­financing of the operational fund for producers’ organisations and in terms of safeguarding this important sector of agriculture, which is also suffering from the pressure of imports. These are the result of bilateral agreements in which this sector has sometimes been used as a bargaining chip, with no account being taken of the interests of the southern countries or of the importance that it has for employment and for the development of these countries.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The principle of subsidiarity is important to us. We want to see a limited and efficient EU dealing with cross-border problems. To the extent that equality is a political issue, we believe that it is an area of responsibility for the Member States. Consequently, we do not want the EU to use its budget for distributing funds to organisations concerned with gender equality. We have therefore abstained from voting on this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
I want to speak about the Karamanou report on Europol. Everybody who has spoken agrees that it is a very valuable initiative and we support what it says. However, as many speakers have said, there is not enough democratic control and accountability. That is the main focus of the cross-party amendments which the Committee is putting forward. We want to see parliamentary involvement in the appointments of the director, and by a majority vote because, when we have enlargement to 28 Member States, it will be very difficult to find everybody agreeing on the identity of the director. It has to be by a majority vote – we propose two-thirds – and we also want parliamentary involvement in the dismissal of the director, if ever that becomes necessary, by a two-thirds vote as well. We want parliamentary involvement in the management board. We could enormously improve democratic accountability and control. And we want the Court to be involved in disputes. These things are in the amendments and, judging by the debate in the committee, I am very hopeful that Parliament will vote for them. However, I want to look for just a few moments at the future, and at what comes beyond this proposal. I see two signs, one good and one bad. The bad development in the future which many colleagues have spoken about – including my friend, Mr Andrews – is the remorseless growth in organised crime which we are seeing across Europe. The opening of frontiers for the single market was a thoroughly good idea but it has also helped the Mafia, and criminals from Eastern Europe to spread their tentacles across our Union. When we get enlargement, which is the good aspect of the future that I see, we are going to find it more and more difficult to counter organised crime. The criminals can move freely across frontiers but our police forces cannot. Already today there are about 120 different police forces in the European Union, most of them, I may say, in my own Member State, because in the United Kingdom we have a police force in every single county and they only work up to their county borders. We have far too many police forces already and we are going to have even more once we have completed enlargement, our ability to deal with organised crime is going to be very much less than it should be. What we need is for Europol to be given operational capability across frontiers. At public meetings, when I talk about the growth in organised crime, the response invariably from the public is, “Well, what are you doing about it? Get on with it. Take the necessary powers. Organise the police forces so we can deal with the growth in crime.” The public is in favour and – as very often happens – is ahead of us and the Council of Ministers. I should very much like to hear the Commissioner’s reaction to the idea that when we hopefully get the concept of enhanced cooperation accepted at the Nice Summit next month that we create a European FBI. We do not have to call it a European FBI, but that is the logical next step. It would have full public support and it is necessary for the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to say something on a different matter. Thank you for giving me the floor. On Mondays, when the session is resumed, we generally have half an hour on the topical issues which each member wishes to raise. This Monday, for procedural reasons, you pushed this half hour to the end of Monday's sitting, to midnight and perhaps even later. However, this debate and this possibility are given to members so that they can, as I said, raise topical issues which, at one o'clock in the morning, are no longer topical. I should like to protest because I had requested the floor on a very serious issue. You did not allow me to speak and you did not accept the debate. I would ask that this sort of procedure not be repeated.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In December, Parliament approved the budget for 2004 – both the Community budget for the EU of 15, and, in collaboration with the Council, indicative values for enlargement to ten new Member States. The focus was, therefore, on a Community budget for 25, even though enlargement does not actually take place until May. The aim of this Draft Amending Budget is to establish fixed amounts for the EU of 25. The issue here is not merely technical, yet nor is it primarily procedural. The key issue is the content of the first budget of an EU enlarged to include countries in which average incomes per head are substantially lower than the current EU average; a budget with payment spending raised to the level of inflation; the lowest budget, in real terms, since 1987; a budget that is not only incapable of contributing towards economic and social cohesion, but also institutionalises discrimination towards the new Member States; a budget that sets a bad example of Parliament’s role as a budgetary authority, as, year after year, it accepts cuts and redeployments, which, in spite of worthy protests, tally with the objectives of the ‘Charter of the six’. This budget does not augur well for the 2007/2013 financial framework. It is characterised by political aims that are dominated by the obsession with competitiveness, and in which social issues are replaced by military and security issues. It would be difficult for a budget to be any more explicit. - Report: Böge and Colom I Naval (A5-0066/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the number of illegal immigrants in Europe is rising. Our leaders are also stepping up their use of tough language, but in my view, they have treated our electorate's concerns with contempt by failing to formulate objectives in Seville, such as a European border police force, real European migration policy with partnership agreements with the countries of origin, and genuine and prompt support for the proposals of Commissioner Vitorino. Progress has been made in European security policy. Institutional adjustments have been made, but it is still necessary for Europe to speak with one voice in establishing an EU-NATO treaty in order to be able to use the NATO assets and thus to become operational in good time. We hope that in the Council’s Foreign Affairs club, both the ministers of Development and Cooperation and the Defence ministers will be meeting with each other regularly and visibly to demonstrate that Europe’s security policy places great emphasis on conflict prevention and fighting poverty in the interest of a more stable world. Our draft resolution of Parliament refers to the Council, Foreign Affairs, as well as Development and Cooperation. This is the title which we warmly recommend. In the Middle East, we now want to focus all our attention on the international conference. Our Group stresses that it should be the Palestinian people who decide on their leadership, and not President Bush, but we deeply regret that hundreds of Europeans who wanted to support the peace process were denied access to Israel, and we continue to call for a political dialogue involving two states, Israel and the Palestine, which are both safe and both democratic. The spiral of violence, from whichever corner, is always ultimately at the expense of the desire for peace that we all share As for EU-Russia relations, we support the progress made. In addition, Kaliningrad must consider the Schengen Agreements as a framework for a solution. Joint EU-Russian border control could be a first step. The Group expresses grave concern about India and Pakistan. The EU and the Member States must make far greater efforts in the field of de-escalation. Pakistan must comply with Resolution 1373 of the Security Council, the infiltration has to stop and we need a bilateral approach in this area, also involving India. The EU could act as the facilitator in this. May we hope that we will work in a multilateral manner, in contrast to the unilateral deviations of our US allies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, how dare Mr Yiannitsis say I am not worthy of a reply. I have asked burning questions. His government is also guilty and should reply with greater respect to the questions I put to him.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I welcome Mr Frederiksen and Mrs Diamantopoulou. I shall keep my comments brief, for small groups have little speaking time. I thank our fellow MEPs Mrs Bastos and Mr Bushill-Matthews for their contributions. I should like to outline a number of key areas. We are discussing the revision of the employment strategy. If we look at the current guidelines, and the priorities as they are at present formulated, then it is clear that the employment strategy has, in fact, partly been overtaken by the Lisbon process, and the Lisbon process, has, in turn, been overtaken by an economic downturn. This means that a great number of things are actually in the balance. Labour participation targets are probably not realistic; there is no employment; it is only possible to offer incentives if employment is on offer and if the offer of employment is promoted. The question is, however, whether we are always able to do this. I am very interested to find out about these new guidelines and also very interested to see what we can get rid of. How can we sum this up? I can understand that things are different for youth unemployment, but a number of other types of work, such as jobs for the elderly, cannot always be promoted. I welcome new guidelines and do not believe there is always a need for pillars. These guidelines should, however, be clear and simple, just like the new relationship with ESF and the funds. With regard to streamlining, I actually endorse Mr Pronk's view on this, namely that streamlining and integration are closely connected. If we talk about integration, we should also take account of the economic and socio-economic policy aspects in the re-assessment of what we refer to as the social and employment policy. Finally, I would ask the Commissioner or the Council why the Social Security Directive has not, to date, been reviewed. I have seen the annotated agenda and cannot make out any progress. I wonder when this will happen when we talk about flexibility on the one hand and social security on the other.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too should like to warmly congratulate Mrs Jöns on her very important contribution towards raising the awareness of the institutions of the European Union about the burning issue of breast cancer, not only by drafting this excellent report, but also by organising the relevant exhibition at the European Parliament and by organising a public debate at which leading scientists from all over Europe participated, in the presence also of the competent Commissioner, Mr Byrne. We realised at the public hearing, with sadness, disappointment and surprise, that very little money is available for research into diseases which afflict women particularly frequently, such as osteoporosis, the consequences of the menopause and breast cancer, the subject of today's debate. In other words, we found that more funds are available for diseases which mainly afflict men, and I say this for the benefit of my male colleagues, rather than for the benefit of the diseases which hit women; in other words, when it comes to combating diseases and health problems, there is also gender discrimination. And I should also like to ask the European Commission to look as this, because, as the data which the Commissioner and other honourable Members referred to show, one in eight women is afflicted by this serious disease, which mainly afflicts women between the ages of 35 and 55. We, the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, are asking and calling for more research into the causes, for early diagnosis, for preventive measures and for treatment, once the disease has manifested itself. Of course, we recognise the efforts being made by the European Commission and I should like to thank you, Commissioner, for all the positive messages you have given us today about the promotion of measures and programmes with specific targets and, most importantly, for the fact that there will be an evaluation of the results and you will take account of the proposals formulated in Mrs Jöns' report in the recommendation which you are planning for the Member States and, finally, for the fact that you will take advantage of the opportunities afforded us by new technologies, especially the Internet. Thank you very much for these positive measures you have announced.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am speaking as spokesperson for the Committee on Budgets on fisheries issues and it falls to me firstly to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Fava, whose report I am essentially going to comment on, on its excellence. Allow me to point out that the Common Fisheries Policy is funded almost entirely by means of the Union’s budget. But it does not even represent 1% of the whole budget, and is funded by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), the regional fund and the social fund. The action plan is intended to alleviate the short-term consequences for fishermen and the fishing industry resulting from the conservation and protection measures, by means of the reprogramming of the FIFG for social measures and a review of all the existing aid, but it also provides for the possible release of additional sums. I would like to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries which has incorporated the following points of the Committee on Budgets into the Resolution: The first stresses that it is not probable that the Council’s amendments to the Commission’s package on the reform of the CFP, adopted at its meeting of 16 to 22 December 2002, will facilitate the application of this reform nor the scheduled reprogramming of 611 million from the FIFG. The second points out that the financial resources available in heading 2 of the financial perspectives intended for the fisheries sector and the areas dependent on fishing can be calculated at EUR 28 000 million for the period 2000-2006. Finally, it is stressed that additional European Union funding can only be allocated to fishing measures intended to compensate for losses if this is compatible with the maximum limit in heading 2 of the financial perspectives, or by employing the flexibility instrument laid down in Article 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999.

Political group: PSE
I am grateful to the Commissioner for his statement which settles an extremely important issue, giving the assurance that the staff of the agencies will not suffer from job insecurity or be of insufficient quality. I think that is a very important point. I take this opportunity to add that we had a very late discussion with Mr van Hulten, the representative of the Group of the and – he has authorised me to say this –– contrary to what was envisaged previously, his group could agree to support both Amendment No 13, which was passed by the Committee on Budgets, and also parts 3 and 4, just referred to by the Commissioner, of Amendment No 25. I am saying this so that there is no misunderstanding, and if I have not expressed Mr van Hulten’s thinking correctly he can put it differently, but it will mean we have a much more united vote in this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, regardless of their situation, today millions of people have seen in the media the degrading conditions in which the prisoners have been transported and have seen on television the humiliating conditions they have been subjected to inside and outside the sadly famous cages. It is not simply a question of condemning the attitude of the United States authorities, but also of rejecting the shameful comments made in the initial days by the base’s military commanders. Some of them, in very bad taste, showed disdain and racism towards the prisoners. A superpower which is not just a military, but also a civil, power should, in my opinion, set a proper example of respect for human rights, even if two twin towers had been destroyed for each of the 50 states of the Union. Whatever happens, they should always show full respect for human rights. Nevertheless, I hope that 11 September has not numbed American public opinion so much that it has become blinded and cannot react in a decent a dignified fashion within the United States itself. In any event, many Europeans are prepared to remain vigilant, to remember that it is essential to maintain our values and principles in this war which we must wage against terrorism and fanaticism. Or are we going to be prepared to renounce the values we claim to defend at this point in European construction?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur on the work that she has done. There are two simple points I want to make. There are some things that the public sector cannot do and some things the market cannot do. Certainly the public sector cannot make good films. I do not believe it can do much of a job of judging what is a good film. Whenever we try it in the United Kingdom, any support from the government tends to mean that the film is going to be a flop. We need to very careful about that. Similarly, the market does not have adequate resources or adequate ability to ensure that we have sufficiently skilled and trained people. That certainly is an area that is proposed in this report and is a responsibility at a European level. I must pay tribute to organisations like, in Britain, the National Film School in Beaconsfield, which needs help to do its work. I was pleased to see there are some references to digital radio in this report, but not enough. We should not forget the radio sector in audio-visual. I hope that will not be forgotten as this report goes through. Finally, it is very easy to write a long speech. It is much harder to give a short speech. It is easy to spend a large budget, but difficult to spend a small budget. We look to the Commission to spend the money that they have efficiently and effectively.

Political group: PPE-DE