GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Trentin for the very good job he has done under extremely difficult circumstances. The latest version of the report arrived this morning, and it has not been easy for any of us on the committees to cooperate under these conditions. We are nonetheless agreed on many issues, and Mr Trentin has done very well in accepting a number of the viewpoints produced by our committee. I agree with him that the starting point must be the fact that the European economies are in the doldrums right now and need to be strengthened and that investments need to be made in what is necessary and in what there is substantial political agreement about. Both Mr Trentin and Mr Marinos have talked about education. I would especially emphasise basic education and basic professional training. It is also important to invest money in improving the ecological infrastructures, which are beneficial for the future, as well as to invest money in education, which has a large effect upon employment. It is important not only to do those things that are required immediately but also those that are required in the long term and that will have beneficial social consequences. It is therefore crucial to give particular attention, and more than has been given so far, to the importance of strengthening those local labour markets that are less vulnerable to economic trends. We shall have the opportunity to return to this subject in Parliament a little later when we debate a report from the Commission about developing local employment strategies. I wish finally to say that, unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity to take sufficient account of the East European countries and their economies, something which it would be desirable to do as part of this process. Certainly, there are other measures which need to be prioritised in the short term, but as soon as we have a somewhat longer-term perspective it will be necessary to discuss the economics in a pan-European perspective.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I, too, would like to thank Mrs Montfort for the excellent work she has done. I believe that the debate conducted within the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to which I hope Parliament will give tangible substance when it comes to vote, has been all the more valid and necessary in terms of reintroducing into this multiannual programme, which we are going to approve, suitable time and space for small and medium-sized businesses and, in particular, for micro-enterprises and craft industries which are of such great importance to the economy of the European Union. From this viewpoint, I feel that we cannot approve of the fact that the programme presented by the Commission devotes little time or space to micro-enterprises, in particular, when in recent years the concept of micro-enterprises and craft industries has been gathering considerable momentum. In fact, we must do more and better for small businesses and micro-enterprises, and above all, we must do this in concrete terms when talking of the information and knowledge economy, research and innovation. When seen in this context, this multiannual programme can only represent a first step, after which we must continue in tangible terms – and I agree with what Mr Rübig has just said on this – by promoting, for example, the development of the Euro Info Centre network, which is one of the facets and mainstays of action in favour of small and medium-sized businesses within the European Union. I feel that this network should also be made responsible for the local-level coordination of those European networks that are already up and running. Furthermore, we must in practice set aside specific and ring-fenced amounts, under European Union actions, for small and medium-sized businesses, within the ambit of all those activities relating to research, innovation, the e-Europe project and so forth. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, this report on the Council’s common position by our fellow Member Mr Piecyk, in its final version as adopted by the parliamentary committee, is indeed a very serious piece of work; it makes a number of fundamental proposals with a view to including intermodal terminals in the network, applying equal terms to all ports as regards the eligibility of investments, applying stricter criteria and conditions for including seaports in the trans-European network and supporting inland ports. There are, therefore, what would appear to be reasonable increases in freight and passenger traffic volume thresholds. Of course, putting each type of proposed measure on an equal footing will cause problems unless objective requirements are also put on an equal footing. For example, as regards the subject under discussion, an extensive hinterland which is currently served by a large number of ports could start channelling traffic to just a few of them in order to ensure that they meet the more stringent eligibility criteria. If, for example, there are two ports, one could be promoted over the other. However, if a relatively small or medium-sized island is currently served by just one port, how is it supposed to increase its traffic? Objectively-speaking, it cannot do so; is it therefore right that a country with a lot of islands which necessarily has many such ports cannot benefit from the same advantages for its port infrastructure? And what about the cohesion we are all fighting for? And the provision in the Amsterdam Treaty for the special treatment which island regions obviously require? My speaking time is running out, Mr President, and I shall finish there; but before I do, as we are debating shipping, I too should like to express my deep-felt sorrow at the loss of life of our fellow human beings who were travelling on one of the many ships needed to serve the many Greek islands, which obviously therefore require a great deal of specific interest on our part. This interest needs to be manifested constantly as there will always be numerous islands with natural features which we cannot change.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is due to the imminent departure of the French Vice-President, Mr Noyer, that we are today debating the nomination of Mr Lukas Papademos. On behalf of my group – and, I believe, on behalf of the whole House – I would like most warmly to thank the departing Vice-President for the excellent work he has done, as also exemplified by constant dialogue with Parliament and the favourable reception he gave to our arguments and proposals. As its chairman has already said, the nomination of Lukas Papademos is supported unanimously by the committee. There are, of course, reasons for this; his life, with a career in academic research and teaching, as well as a role as Governor and Vice-President of the Bank of Greece foreordain Lukas Papademos for this position. If I may refer only to his two positions in Greece, he made, as Vice-President of Greece's central bank, a substantial contribution to the complete liberalisation of capital markets. Apart from that, it was he who, as that bank's Governor, took Greece completely into the euro zone. Let me also say that the hearing established beyond doubt that the new Vice-President of the ECB sees no contradiction between price stability on the one hand and growth and employment on the other; on the contrary, price stability is for him a precondition for the creation of growth and employment. He therefore sees no reason to amend the treaty by which the ECB was set up. Price stability is the task, cause and objective of the European Central Bank's policy. I thank him for his proposals for greater transparency in announcing the European Central Bank's decisions in order to strengthen public confidence in the euro, and for his clear commitment to the European Central Bank's independence and to rejecting political interventions. Together with the Council, we have made the right decision. We wish him every success. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The Treaty of Nice means that the EU will become more supranational and centralised. It increases the power of the big countries at the expense of the small countries. No steps are being taken to make the EU more democratic or to increase the power of the national parliaments. On the contrary, the influence of the national democracies is being reduced by the further restriction of the right of veto and by the fact that the European Parliament is being given more power. The enlargement is not being made easier; rather the decision process in the Council is being made more complex. We therefore oppose the principal orientation of the Treaty of Nice and will vote against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as previous speakers have said, the time has come to find a workable solution to this problem, as well as a solution which is WTO-compliant. Far too often in the past, the WTO has ruled against us. I represent industries in my Member State, the UK, which have fallen foul of US retaliatory action, where Mrs Barshefsky, the US trade secretary, has decided to impose 100% increases in import tariffs on Scottish companies. We have suffered losses in the cashmere industry. When these companies in my Member State, in my constituency, were confronted with 100% import tariffs by the US, at one point it could have led to the closure of the cashmere industry in the Borders of Scotland, with a potential loss of 4000 jobs. We have another small company, Arran Aromatics, which exports the majority of its products to America. It has also been hit with retaliatory action by the US. It employs 50 people on a remote West Coast Scottish island and yet they are suffering from retaliation from the banana war, about which they know little and with which they have no connection whatsoever. This is deeply unfair. A lot has been made in this debate of the apparent unanimity of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in supporting Mr Dary's report. I should say to you that there were many amendments put forward to Mr Dary's report in the Agriculture Committee which showed that there were deep divisions in that committee. We must not take that as evidence of unanimity in any way. If the colleagues from the southern Member States are going to continue to vote against WTO compliance then they must take the consequences and not the innocent companies in my Member State.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is good reason to rejoice that Ireland has now accepted the Treaty of Nice, with its specific declarations on Irish neutrality. This removed a serious obstacle to enlargement. Enlargement is a historic occurrence for which, in my opinion, both the Commission and the Danish Presidency have prepared the ground most competently. The applicant countries have made a tremendous effort to prepare themselves for accession to the EU. I sense that the remaining problems are clear. Now, therefore, it is up to the Heads of Government of the 15 countries to show leadership and responsibility in order that the Presidency can in the coming week obtain the required common mandate to conclude the negotiations with the ten applicant countries on the basis of the Commission’s January proposal. No new conditions for enlargement should be imposed. Agricultural and funding reform should not be tied up directly with enlargement. On the other hand, of course, as we well know, the present and future members of the EU should be able to agree at the Copenhagen Summit in December on at least some of the principles for future agricultural and funding reform, which, as we know, will be necessary from 2006. It is also important that the outcome of negotiations we are aiming at is fair on the applicant countries, and that we bring about a fair competitive situation, possibly with slightly shorter transitional arrangements in the field of agricultural subsidies, so that referendums in the new Member States can obtain a ‘yes’ vote. With regard to the Kaliningrad issue, I also hope that a good enough solution can be found, so that the little enclave does not become a conflict region, but instead a positive player in the Baltic region; a solution which of course fully respects both Lithuania’s sovereignty and its desire to become a member of Schengen. A ‘corridor’ solution, which brings back memories of earlier solutions to similar problems in Europe, must be avoided at all costs. We should be able to solve the transit question in a different way, possibly by means of a special passport system. But I extend my thanks to the Danish Presidency for its competent leadership.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to thank Mrs Gröner for her work and commitment. We can be very happy with the report that is before us. The most remarkable thing about the previous DAPHNE Programme is probably the enormous success it has enjoyed. The fact that demand exceeded the budget eight times gives a clear idea of the need for support for the work that falls within its scope. Consequently, the proposed increase in the budget, of which the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities approves, is certainly not a luxury. In this area, we can state without any hesitation that we should not ask ourselves how much the programme is costing the Community, but rather how much it is generating. The DAPHNE Programme has become a very important advertisement for the added value that the European Union can offer. Moreover, not only does it provide a support, but at the same time forms the most important incentive, in the field of equal opportunities and the fight against violence perpetrated against children, young people and women. This is why it is so important to note that the complex nature of the project applications appears to constitute a major stumbling-block. There is the risk that this may create a number of inequalities, certainly for third countries, but also for the new Member States. In order to alleviate this, it should be possible, and even straightforward, to set up a helpdesk or support desk which can guide applicants through the application procedure, as is now also proposed in the report. This will also enhance the quality of the projects submitted. The fact that perhaps a number of projects had not been drafted all that well is undoubtedly related to the rather limited provision of information. This is why Parliament's report also suggests organising a think tank, as Mrs Gröner has already mentioned. This think tank could suggest possible projects and make it easier to set priorities during the process of selecting them. It is precisely for that reason that the report very definitely wants to mention by name a number of particularly vulnerable groups and situations.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of my group I also wish to thank the rapporteur for the work that we on the Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development jointly prepared. The proposal before us now can be traced back to when my country held the presidency in 1999. Then once again it was realised that the alcohol markets need common rules. The objective is to correct the surplus situation and it is being proposed to dismantle national aid as part of the measures to be implemented. The committee, however, was unanimous in its conclusion that the whole proposal should be rejected. Synthetic alcohol should be considered comparable with alcohol of agricultural origin. The legal basis now in force makes this impossible. The Group endorses the course of action proposed by the rapporteur as we wish to make two comments: firstly, we want to complain about the unsatisfactory way in which the Commission has prepared this matter, and, secondly, it would be good to keep the legal basis consistent from the point of view of the single market. We could in this way also proceed in the right way in COM reform. Although the Commission’s proposal is by no means totally acceptable, my personal opinion is that it would make the situation better than it is now. We on the committee drafted a good number of amendments to it which might have helped this matter to gain ground. It is a pity that now we will not effect any legislation. This is probably the sixth time this matter has been discussed by the EU institutions. The end result is always the same: nothing is done. The legal basis cannot be changed just like that. We have to continue with things as they are. As I understand it, this is all very much based on the question of the codecision procedure relating to agricultural matters, which causes problems all the time. It is continually being discussed in the Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development and often we reach a situation that is somewhat artificial. The EU is in the process of enlarging. Soon we will have ten new Member States, and a simple matter like this, such as similar substances coming from the same source, as Mr MacCormick said here, cannot be dealt with or decided upon. The EU institutions have debated this issue five or six times and have always drawn a blank. Ethyl alcohol and synthetic alcohol are, in my view, an excellent example of why we must swiftly address questions about the Treaty, as after 2006, with the reform of agricultural policy, Parliament will have to take some very fundamental decisions. If the Treaty prevents this kind of issue from being corrected and taken forward we really will be on the wrong track. How will it reflect on the agricultural profession as a whole and how will it be for the European agricultural model and its justification if we cannot have a decision on a matter of this sort?

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, first of all, I should like to say a word of thanks to Mrs Langenhagen for the huge amount of work she has carried out on this topic. It has been a long haul, with obstacles and unruliness along the way, and the end is certainly not yet in sight. However, we are taking an important decision tomorrow, which will bring us one step closer to our goal. International developments underline the importance of having a system of our own, but at the same time, of establishing sound international cooperation, so that interoperability of the system can be achieved. I should like to mention three other points which the Group considers important. First of all, the management structure. To the Group, it is important that the management is transparent, and we are already glad of a major step forward by the Council, namely the proposal to set up a single administrative structure in agreement with Article 171 of the Treaty. The second point I should like to raise is the financial concern. We are still not entirely convinced that that is going in the right direction. We accept that at the beginning, public money must be invested, but industry must contribute too. There must be a balance. There is still no binding agreement with the private sector and there is still uncertainty in that area. That is why we have tabled an amendment for which I should ask your support, so that the European Union does not become a safety net. And given the high cost, we expect a contribution towards the cost of the use. Improved geographical access and reliability must be factors in favour of which industry must choose and in which they must display willingness to invest. That is exactly what makes the system first-rate.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I wish to speak briefly, following the latest speeches by the representatives of the Basque Nationalist Party and Euskal Herritarrok, to express my solidarity and agreement with the statement you have made, Madam President, on behalf of the European Parliament, in defence of democracy and peace in Spain. Our main problem in Spain is terrorism, and fascist positions such as those of Euskal Herritarrok are a threat to peace in Spain and in Europe. The fact that there are internal problems in Spain resulting from the political differences between the central government and the Basque parliament does not prevent us here in the European Parliament from standing for peace and democracy and against fascism.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we once again have cause to regret the fact that, in Europe, there are still people who murder others because they think differently and who burn down the houses of their political opponents. There are people who force many others to emigrate in order to save their lives and the lives of their families. Faced with this, under the rule of law, we democrats can only unite to defend our system of freedom from the tyranny of terror and trust in judicial action. The most difficult thing is to explain to the widows and to the children who have been orphaned why their loved ones have been taken away. To you, Elvira, María José, we can only offer our deepest sympathy. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Antonione, the Presidency’s position seems to be quite clear and is essentially in line with Parliament’s position; that is precisely why the brokerage endeavour seeking to bring about a high-minded, noble compromise that is in harmony with the text adopted by the Convention must be supported; the overall balance of the text cannot and must not be altered. Mr Frattini’s statements on the speech you made in this House give us great hopes, as stressed by Mr Brok, of the final outcome of the work of the Intergovernmental Conference: I remain, therefore, one of those who are passionately optimistic. I am sure that we will achieve the goal towards which we are all working; I am absolutely convinced that no one will have the courage, no-one will want to risk being held politically accountable for giving Europe a heart attack and shattering a long-held dream. Mr Antonione, I believe, however, that it is right to bring to the Presidency’s attention a number of issues, which really do require some thought. Firstly, the role of the European Parliament. It would be a serious mistake to limit the role of the House which represents the peoples of the Union; I believe that the provisions of the text adopted by the Convention are appropriate and should not be altered. Secondly, the composition of the Commission: the accession countries – representatives of which are in this Chamber – have great hopes of the Europe of the tomorrow. We must not let them down by keeping them out of the Executive. That is why it is right for there to be a Commissioner with full rights for each country, at least during the initial phase of tomorrow’s Europe. Now, Mr Antonione, for a matter which has been the subject of much debate, and I feel that its importance must not be underestimated by the House. I feel – I am absolutely convinced of this, and not because I am a strong supporter of the Church – that the preamble to the Constitution should include an explicit reference to Europe’s Judeao-Christian roots. We must not deny a fundamental part of our history, we must not deny our deepest roots, we must not renounce the Europe of principles, we must not renounce this explicit reference, precisely because we want – and many countries understand this – secular institutions. This has been taken on board, Mr Barón Crespo, by the German Chancellor, the Social Democrat, Mr Schröder, who has decided not to block a proposal which seeks to make the individual, the central importance of the individual, the central importance of the citizen, the focus of tomorrow’s Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE