GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Having previously served in local government, I regard the Napolitano report on the role of local and regional entities in European integration as a significant step towards getting Europe’s feet firmly back on the ground. After all, the officials and politicians in the European Union are spending much too much time in the corridors of supranational power and are forgetting that Europe is really made up of four governmental levels: local, regional, national and European. Europe’s roots lie at local and regional level. That is where the European lives and works; that is where most of the policies that we make in Europe are carried out. The Napolitano report recognises the importance of the local and regional entity for the continued existence and consolidation of European integration, and not only the formal regions with constitutional powers, but all regions, from Dutch provincies to English counties to German Länder and Spanish comunidades autónomas. That is because, in a Europe in which all citizens are equal and therefore have equal rights, it is not possible to differentiate between territorial entities and to grant one region more rights than another. Of course, every Member State can determine for itself how its own constitutional system should be organised, however, and that naturally means that decentralisation in one country is organised differently from decentralisation in another. I think that Mr Napolitano has made a number of very good proposals for improving the involvement of regional and local entities in the European policy process. I am referring here to the participation of the regions involved – both in the draft phase and in the execution phase of the policy – the appropriate application of Article 203, the possibility for the region to ask the Committee of the Regions or their own government to go to the Court if they think that the principle of subsidiarity has been violated, or to take action, and finally to develop a statute for border regions. A statute of this kind for border regions could make the lives of many Europeans who live on both sides of the borders every day quite a bit easier and more pleasant. I hope that as a result of this report, the Convention will actually bring Europe and the regions closer to the people and we will anchor the region firmly in a new European constitution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, regarding protein deficits Commissioner Fischler mentioned a few options which are available in the European Union. But, Commissioner, I think, and I am sure you know, that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development wanted to give a clear signal with the Auroi report that promoting the planting of protein crops on set-aside lands would be given more support. I am convinced that Parliament will take this line. Back, however, to the first issue. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Herr Graefe zu Baringdorf, said that how the production of mixed feedingstuffs had evolved over the years had been an eye-opener. How different positions have been put forward at different times here in Parliament has also been an eye-opener. The path has not always been smooth, it has had its rough edges and there has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing. I think, however, we are now on the right path towards showing even greater transparency and not only promoting it but implementing it as well. There have been hostilities and demands from industry against which Parliament and representatives in Parliament, with a clear majority, have always stood their ground. From the outset, Parliament has followed a clear line for more transparency. Cards are being shuffled in the production of compound feedingstuffs and wherever cards are shuffled we need to be especially careful about whether we are actually dealing with a game of cards or the production of feedingstuffs. We have been careful to implement transparency more visibly than in the past, which is only right and proper. You are smiling, Commissioner Fischler. Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf talked about a half-open declaration, which has been something special in recent years. I would like to say that it would have been more correct not to talk of a disguised but a half-disguised declaration. That may have brought about more movement in the direction we now want to go in. Transparency and the positive list are necessary and would be a further improvement to the Commission proposal. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take an example from another area of the food industry, and that is the purity regulations for beer. The purity regulations were introduced and became law in Bavaria in 1516, which was right and proper. A positive list was introduced then and a positive list should be introduced now. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if tomorrow, the entire House adopts the viewpoints held by the competent committees with regard to the directive, I am convinced that the new directive on equal treatment in the workplace will be an excellent directive, which will have an enormous impact on the elderly, the disabled, homosexuals and lesbians in their battle against discrimination in the workplace. My group therefore lends its unqualified support to the report and we would particularly like to thank the co-rapporteurs, Mr Thomas Mann and Mrs Joke Swiebel for their sterling work and also congratulate them on the excellent cooperation within the respective committees. I would, in fact, like to seize the opportunity also to congratulate Mr Cashman, because although directives are important, action programmes are, of course, essential too in terms of the support they lend to directives. The speed with which the institutions have deployed the new Amsterdam powers, Commissioner, show that the European Union is still in the vanguard of equal opportunities, and I would like to extend my express thanks to the European Commission for this. Moreover, I hope that the French Presidency will be indulged and that this directive and the action programme will now be approved. I would like to air a few concerns regarding this directive which are of particular importance for my group. Parliament rightly chose to play the trump cards which we already have in the form of existing directives on equal treatment, those on gender and those on race and ethnic origin, and I am particularly pleased with the sound descriptions of indirect discrimination, positive action and the principle of shared burden of proof. We were also right to decide against including sex discrimination in this directive because there is already a separate European directive on sex discrimination, which will, in fact, be revised further to the Commission proposals and which is founded on a much stronger legal basis, about which Parliament, in fact, may decide in codecision. What is important, however, is that the European Parliament should advocate that double discrimination, which often victimises older women and disabled women, should be tackled here. Thirdly, my group applauds the decision to delete the non-exhaustive list of so-called justifications of differences of treatment on the grounds of age. This would only open the floodgates to so-called discriminations already warranted in advance. We are also delighted with the provision in the directive which stipulates that equal treatment for the disabled also means that companies are expected to make the necessary adjustments within the workplace. Finally, Commissioner, I would like to say how excellent this work is. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for the cooperation, but our task is not finished. Let us hope – and I am relying on you, Commissioner – that the European Commission will now come forward with proposals, pursuant to Article 13, to fight discrimination on grounds other than those to be found in the workplace.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to congratulate Mr Haarder on his comprehensive, balanced, informed and exhaustive report. However, it has unfortunately been contaminated by the inappropriate inclusion, and this was not the rapporteur’s intention, of specific issues regarding national polemics which do not have much connection with the European dimension of Human Rights. Messrs Di Pietro, Schulz and Cossutta have already spoken on this subject. The issue of the exile of the former Italian royal family is being examined by the Italian Parliament. I find it hard to believe that the staunch advocators of the principle of subsidiarity, here reiterated by Mr Cornillet, are those same people who are calling for a European intervention to settle national issues. The attempt to turn a debatable issue of the legal system into a question of respect for human rights is incredible. You want to make the careers of magistrates separate and prevent political figures from being judged by magistrates who are part of trade associations which are recognised as interlocutors – and rightly so – by the Council of Europe. You say that no magistrate who has held the office of Public Prosecutor can perform the functions of a judge. In France and Italy, the regulations in force provide for the very opposite of this single career path. This is not so elsewhere but the end result is the same. For example, Mr Bruener, who we have all just agreed to appoint Director of OLAF, used to be a German magistrate: he was first a judge and then a Public Prosecutor, then a judge, and then a Public Prosecutor again, and this did not cause any concern or violate any human rights. In Italy, the issue is shortly to be submitted to a referendum, but it certainly has nothing to do with the excellent report of Mr Haarder, which, in any case, deserves our appreciation, and our appreciation should not be any the less for this attempt to abuse an instrument which is worthy of much more important considerations, as many of today’s speeches have shown.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as everybody knows, Mr Podestà is an extremely wise, fair Vice-President of this House. I closed my eyes just now and saw him as the new king of Afghanistan, with a crown, sceptre, a long beard and great power. Why is that? Because item 13 of Mr Podestà’s report states that the European Parliament reiterates “its will to support the reconstruction of Afghanistan” and its willingness to use humanitarian aid properly and “in an efficient way to help the Afghan people”. He had succeeded in that intention, in that second in which I saw him, and the Afghans, who were happy to have received such a large amount of aid from Mr Podestà, had decided to appoint and crown him king of Afghanistan.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today, a fortuitous left-wing majority of five votes has done damage to the cause of human rights. I take the view that one can have the most divergent views on all issues of policy, but I regard a polarisation of this sort on human rights as being intrinsically malignant. We should be consistent in concerning ourselves with real violations of human rights and real discrimination, and doing so consensually and on the basis of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, rather than letting this House be divided into two equal and mutually antagonistic ideological camps. In my view, the cause of human rights is too important for a community founded on law and human rights to allow that to be done to it. That is why I voted against this report. Not everything that has human rights on the cover is actually about human rights, and if we want to lay down how the monks on Mount Athos organise access to their monasteries, regulate religious communities, and force Member States to accept certain definitions of marriage and the family that many of us – myself included – fundamentally repudiate, then that has nothing to do with human rights, but rather with ideology, and it is ideology that has not been neglected in this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have taken the floor in order to reaffirm the need for the modernisation of social protection, which is much more then simply one more step in the construction of Europe. This message is contained in the excellent report by Mr Andersson. Europe, the European Union, although it is very strong in economic and political terms, will remain shaky, weak and limited, perhaps inadequate, if we are not able to strengthen it from a social point of view. I believe that the latter means the possibility of employment for those who require it, but also decisive action in support of the socially disadvantaged. Bearing in mind that everybody has the right to social protection and a minimum guaranteed social income, I believe that we must not forget about those people who were not born in the European Union. Let us not forget that, in 1999, 717,000 people came here to compensate for our low birth rate. In social terms, it is therefore absolutely essential that we have an immigration policy with a social conscience, as President Gutierres recently stated in Spain. We must be very aware of the situation of those people whose prospects of finding work are threatened or reduced by economic changes, mergers, take-overs, new technologies etc. What is required here is a training policy to qualify and prepare people for new jobs, for those who already have a job and for those who need a second opportunity, because sometimes, as the title of the film states, the postman always rings twice. In my humble opinion, it is the responsibility of all European, national and regional governments to ensure that he rings on more than one occasion. It seems to me, Commissioner, that the Commission has the responsibility to promote and coordinate these opportunities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have a specific question for the President-in-Office of the Council. What is her opinion on the full participation of the European Parliament at the Intergovernmental Conference? This is an important question as it is contained in the report approved by this House and is vital to us. I would be grateful if she could answer this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, to begin with, I should like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Costa Neves, for offering such close and constructive cooperation. That does not mean that he was able to agree on all counts as far as the fisheries budget is concerned, but he listened carefully to everything we had to say and created, in any event, a basis for further collaboration, which we found useful. The huge problems in the fisheries sector and the partial failure of the common fisheries policy have left their mark on the fisheries budget. Clearly, the multi-annual orientation programme and the unilateral closure of areas have not proved successful. Failure to conclude a new fisheries agreement with Morocco has led to an explosive situation along the Spanish and Portuguese coasts, an area which is already facing major social problems in connection with illegal immigration. It is for that reason that the Committee on Fisheries has asked for nearly EUR 200 million in order to be able to tackle these problems. The rapporteur suggests including a token entry first and challenging the Council to meet the pledges made in Nice. The Committee on Fisheries endorses this view. However, the Committee on Fisheries is disappointed by the fact that the budget proposal for more money for quota control, which was desperately needed, has been watered down by a liberal amendment in the Committee on Budgets, while the original amendment did receive wide support from all groups in the Committee on Fisheries with this proposal. In the capacity as shadow rapporteur of the Group for the agricultural budget, I note that, of the original request for EUR 1 billion extra for food safety and animal disease control, eventually 580 million was left over, but what we say is: better some of a pudding than none of a pie. In actual fact, we also regret to some extent the Commission’s failure to adhere to the original request for EUR 1 billion extra. Fortunately, the position, that more money must be earmarked for animal disease control, has met with approval. In general, we are of the opinion that, in order to restore consumer confidence, it is vital to bring the European markets, including those for beef, back to normal. As a final point, I have to say that I am delighted with the fact that, with regard to foreign policy, the Group will be tabling an amendment for more attention for Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tadjikistan, and I should also like to recommend this amendment warmly for further discussions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, being the penultimate speaker – Commissioner Vitorino has the honour of closing the debate – exempts me from expressing many considerations which have been expressed by previous speakers, and they have done so very well. I am only going to make two points. One of them is addressed to those Members who have said that what we are voting on today, this arrest warrant, replaces extradition; that is not the case at all; it accompanies extradition for certain crimes which are particularly odious, such as a terrorist crime, precisely so that the European Union may become more efficient. And I am going to make my second point, Mr President. I believe that if we look back to 1992 when this Parliament voted in favour of the Maastricht Treaty, we will see that there were considerable gaps in the issues of justice and internal affairs within the third pillar. It was a great innovation that the European Union was going to deal with issues which had always been at the heart of the Member States. Very little time has passed since then, practically seven years, since Maastricht entered into force, and nevertheless, what progress has been made! Progress has not just been made in terms of European solidarity on a specific problem, the terrorism of ETA, which is extraordinarily important and which is of fundamental importance politically; but progress has also been made in the construction of Europe. This is the way to move forward together in Europe and to deal with the real concerns of the citizens, as has been said here. Therefore, as well as expressing gratitude for European solidarity, I would like to say that this Watson report – and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, who has made great efforts – also represents a very important milestone on this journey which we, including all of us here in this European Parliament, are making together in the construction of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to say that I too am sorry that the Commission has still not submitted a revised proposal on the subject of informing and consulting workers. Even if, after the election, a new and different majority is formed here in Parliament, we support this inquiry into the issue, even if there are some amendments which we in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party value more than others; yes, even if there are aspects of the proposal we should definitely like to have done without. The political process should not be directed by delays. We in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party want to promote the cause of informing and consulting workers, but it is also important to us that the necessary respect should be shown for differences in traditions and culture in this area. No new bureaucratic systems should be established which are out of harmony with labour markets where there is at present an effective dialogue between the social partners. We attach particular importance to the fact that life should not– even with the best of intentions – be made more difficult for small and medium-sized businesses where, in the nature of things, management is close to the workers. The amendments which Parliament adopted at the first reading in April mean, among other things, that the regulations governing the consulting of workers will apply to businesses with 50 or more employees and that it will no longer be possible for individual nations to be exempt from these. We prefer the original proposal which makes it possible in certain circumstances to raise the limit to 100 employees. On the other hand, we can support the tone of the amendments which clearly points in the direction of making the directive a minimum directive with the Member States having the option to go further. As we say, we like some of the things in this proposal from Parliament, and some other things we like rather less. However, a delay in the decision process is something which we definitely cannot countenance. I think, however, that Mrs Diamantopoulou has provided a good explanation of the problems there are in implementing the proposal, and this shows in fact that there are real political problems.

Political group: ELDR
That is not an unexpected answer from Mr Monti. However, he and his colleagues should understand that every time one of these mergers takes place we are going to carry on asking the question. Mr Patten, sitting alongside him, must have been squirming when he heard that answer, because in the previous question we heard a great lecture on respect for human rights. Then suddenly when it comes to the European Union's economic powers, they are blithely ignored. Let me say about Texaco that the Centre for Economic and Social Rights says that in Ecuador they are responsible for a high occurrence of abortion and abnormally high cancer rates. They have been accused by Ecuador's own national oil company of dominating indigenous peoples. In Nigeria, Chevron has been accused by the All-Ijaw indigenous people of instigating violence against them and actually paying Nigerian soldiers to shoot protesters at the Warri naval base. Whatever you say about the legal base and concern over competition policy, the public in Europe is concerned about such abuses of human rights. If you are not willing to act now, I suggest that you signpost how other action could be taken by your colleagues in the Commission against abuses of human rights which are unacceptable to all of us.

Political group: PSE
Looking back on the events of the last year, does the Commissioner now accept that the Commission has a lot to learn in its handling of internal disputes between high-ranking members of staff? Having accepted the urgent need to reform the Commission's accounting system along the lines suggested by its former Chief Accountant, Marta Andreasen – who was in post just four months and working in what was supposedly a hostile environment – and with your understanding, as Commissioner for Reform, that reforms often take longer than expected to deliver, conceive, plan and actually put into action, surely now you can accept that it is time to stop victimising Marta Andreasen and stop these ridiculous disciplinary proceedings against her. Perhaps then common sense can prevail once again within the European Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE