GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this is a decisive moment for the future of the European Union. We are preparing for unprecedented enlargement and, at the same time, we are working on reform of the institutions in order to be able to best manage such a large political entity. We cannot underestimate the value of the Mediterranean region: it must be a privileged partner in our policies, an important border on which we must focus our attention. The process defined in Barcelona in 1995 for building an effective Euro-Mediterranean Partnership is still ongoing, despite the intention expressed by the European Union governments to include the Mediterranean policy among their priorities, an intention fully supported by our group. Despite the progress made at bilateral and multilateral levels, the Charter for Stability and Security is still awaiting completion. The Partnership is still far from achieving its objectives. The forging of multilateral relations has not led to sustained expansion, and the cultural, social and human partnership is highly inadequate. Since the completion of the peace process is essential for the smooth development of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, does the Commission not consider that the Commission and the Union should take resolute action to further the Middle East peace process? With regard to the economic and financial partnership, in addition to creating a free trade area by 2010, would the Commission specify the actions it intends to promote in the countries concerned in order to accomplish the objectives of macroeconomic stabilisation and the process of liberalisation and privatisation, to simplify laws and to consolidate social policies. By what means is the Commission going to make the MEDA programme more efficient? What are the actions it is going to undertake to reduce income discrepancies and to encourage the creation of infrastructures and the reviewing and updating of trade agreements? What are the specific actions that the Commission intends to adopt to create a genuine cultural, social and human partnership? Let us go right back to Barcelona and return to a global tack, fostering the priorities that have been ignored and promoting the development of civil forums, to encourage the active participation of civil society. Let us make it our firm political will to relaunch the Mediterranean partnership, defining a new generation of programmes to prevent fragmentation, improve coordination and ensure the efficient use of resources. Our group has faith in the Mediterranean, and wants the European Union to accord to it the strategic, economic and political importance it once had.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wanted to speak before the debate actually started, because we had been led to believe in our group meeting that one of the other political groups had tabled an amendment under Rule 146 calling for this debate to be adjourned until the next part-session. I understand that it has not been brought forward and therefore I would have liked to put it forward in my own name at that time. As we have now started the debate we cannot do that, but I would just like to express my concern that I was not called before the debate started.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the proposals for 2002 confirm the trend of recent years to reduce the relative value of the Community budget, as can be clearly seen from the fact that the proposed amount is the lowest in the last decade; only 1.03% of GDP. Because of the restrictive guidelines of the Stability Pact and also because of the problems resulting from a major economic slowdown, the Council is continuing to suggest cuts, which creates real problems for the budget’s implementation. This year’s procedure once again betrays true budgetary chaos, with new needs arising and the number of priorities increasing and appropriations becoming smaller and smaller, leading to cutbacks that can only be overridden by revising the Financial Perspective, which is what we have always advocated. Hence, by subscribing to the Council’s way of thinking, the European Parliament is doing no more than vainly attempting to disguise these needs, which are undeniable. This also clearly highlights the absence of clear priorities and a coherent strategy for guaranteeing the proper funding of Community policies in various fields, specifically those of cooperation, agriculture and employment. This is a concern that increases yet further with the creation of considerable reserves which, in the current context, can only give rise to greater doubts. With regard to category four, the only chapter of the budget that continues to show a consistent reduction in sums, the lack of appropriations is striking, particularly if we take account of the needs of and the commitments given to the Balkans, to Palestine, to Afghanistan, on the World Health Fund or for the conversion of the fleets operating in Moroccan waters. The rapporteur’s idea, which is not new, seeks to cut spending, particularly on the Balkans, in order to be able to increase the remaining aid for cooperation and to force the Council to negotiate. Let us hope that this does not lead to further cuts in cooperation such as those we saw last year. We shall see in December what happens. These are some of the reasons why we do not support this budget.

Political group: GUE-NGL
As it has proven possible to swap hats, I also have a question. Detailed information has been printed in the press, including Göteborgsposten, suggesting that US security services have been highly active in preparations for the Summit. They appear to have been in position in Sweden for a number of weeks. I do not know whether the information is incorrect, but it refers to named Gothenburg police officers. Nor have I seen any denial on their part. Therefore, it would also be interesting to know whether events in Malmö were also part of the preparations made with the American security services. Can we have any information on this matter? If not, the door is left open for speculation, which is hardly in the interests of the Swedish Government.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, to save time, now that Amendment No 70 from the Europe of Nations Group has been rejected by an overwhelming majority, could you apply the provisions of Rule 130(7), which states that the President may decide, following the adoption or rejection of a particular amendment, that several other amendments of similar content or with similar objectives be put to the vote collectively. You may seek the agreement of Parliament before doing so. Such a set of amendments may relate to different parts of the original text. This was introduced into our Rules precisely for this sort of situation. We should now be able to vote en bloc on the rest of Mr Berthu's amendments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in this debate on the informal summit in Biarritz, I would like to focus on the IGC and the Charter. Concerning the IGC, I would like to highlight three points. Firstly, the issue of majority decision-making. As I understand it, the French Presidency has presented 45 articles and topics with regard to majority decision-making. This is looking reasonably promising, provided that this number is not cut down to 35 or 40 topics in Nice. But of particular importance is the fact that those topics which will fall under the scope of qualified majority will also fall under the scope of codecision with the European Parliament, and this issue does not appear to be an open-and-shut case. Indeed, if this does not happen, both the national parliaments and the European Parliament will be sidelined, and the democratic rift will widen rather than narrow. Surely that is the last thing we want. Secondly, the issue of the number of Commissioners. Like Mr Brok, I would like to stress here once again that one Commissioner per Member State is absolutely vital to give each country a place in the European executive. As for the number of MEPs, nobody is in favour of more than 700. Would it then not be useful to work on the basis of the new numbers during the next elections in 2004? If new Member States then join, the new numbers can be applied and we will automatically remain under the 700 mark, for if we overstep the mark once, I do not think we can go back. And finally, the Charter. I gather that the document was well-received at Biarritz and that it can be adopted following a number of legal clarifications and subject to an official declaration at the Summit in Nice, to be incorporated at a later stage in the Treaties. In my opinion, the Convention did sterling work and I am proud to have been part of this Convention. The sooner the document can be incorporated in the Treaties, the better, because in that way, the Treaties will gain a constitutional dimension and the citizens will be drawn closer to Europe, because it will mean that a piece of legislation specifically for their benefit has got off the ground.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, economies differ – that is just a fact. The Stability and Growth Pact has to have a far more sophisticated interpretation. The background for this has to be sound public finances and a stable economy. Furthermore, as you have stated, it needs to take into account the economic cycle for budgetary policy. Also, further reforms have to be sustainable, measured against the country's debt profile. We must also allow for public investment, because that can lead to the growth that you referred to in the Lisbon Summit and not just deal with welfare. Countries like the United Kingdom for example after all those disastrous years of under-investment under Tory governments, need to catch up and we must be able to let them do that. But the fact is that, as the old joke says, 'if you line up all the economists around the world head to toe, you may never reach a conclusion'. What we do not want is to line up the Commission head to toe and find out that all that is left is inconsistency. Let us change the Stability and Growth Pact. Let us make it flexible – you can help do that – but let us recognise that it has to be a sophisticated instrument in a real economy.

Political group: PSE
Portugal holds the presidency of the European Union for the first half of the year 2000. It has therefore decided to organise at the end of this month, in Lisbon, a Special European Council on the following problem: ‘Employment, Economic Reforms and Social Cohesion – towards a Europe based on innovation and knowledge’. This initiative is to be congratulated. Unemployment and the resulting poverty and social exclusion are scourges which we must tackle head-on. The preparation of a coherent and coordinated strategy involving all the Member States is therefore essential. We must firstly set ambitious objectives. Those indicated in the Portuguese presidency’s document are the return to full employment, stable growth, a genuine process of social cohesion, equal opportunities and the fight against poverty. As underlined by the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Guterres, we were able to coordinate our economic policies to launch the euro. The European Union must now accept the challenge and proceed in a similar fashion by proposing guidelines for the policy on employment and social inclusion. I also welcome the idea of setting quantified objectives and benchmarks, in particular an annual average growth rate in the EU of 3% and a level of employment of 70%. To complement this, a transparent benchmarking system must be established in order to assess the progress made by Member States in achieving these objectives. This requires an open system of paired assessment and coordination. The presidency’s document also stresses the necessary reinforcement of social convergence and the modernisation of our social protection systems. The essential condition is clearly to guarantee a high level of employment. This requires the creation of jobs, not just any jobs, but quality jobs, particularly in the service sector. It also involves keeping jobs in Europe, given that the recent trend has been mass and systematic redundancies. This means that the workforce has to adapt to the new information technologies. I therefore broadly support this programme. I hope these objectives will lead, during the Lisbon Summit, to specific and ambitious measures which can meet the legitimate expectations of the male and female citizens of Europe.

Political group: PSE
I am sorry to interrupt this august House but I rise on a very important point. A few minutes ago the ECJ ruled in Luxembourg that the French ban on British beef was illegal. (Cheers) Could I have assurances from you, Madam President, that you will do everything you can to make sure that the French fully compensate the poor hard-pressed British farmers as a result of this ruling? (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
As a Member of the European Parliamentary Labour Party (EPLP) I will vote against this report. Though the report contains some useful suggestions for the avoidance of future outbreaks of FMD, it is seriously flawed in a number of important respects. It is factually incorrect in relation to its references to the legality of the culls, suggested breaches of animal welfare legislation, suggested breaches of environmental legislation and lapses in bio-security. It also, for example, states that 10 million animals were killed when farmers claimed for only 6.5 million. The report is so flawed that it cannot be supported.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the wholesomeness of feed materials and feedingstuffs is, of course, very important to the Pensioners' Party, and so I voted for the Paulsen report. To be honest, I have to say that up until yesterday I did not know whether I would give an explanation of vote, but then, as I was leaving Parliament yesterday evening, together with Mr Andria and Mr Speroni – whose first name is Francesco and who is therefore celebrating his name day today, and I wish him and all the other Francescos present in this House a very happy day – I started to feel dizzy, to vomit and to be affected by other such symptoms. I was, alas, the victim of an – albeit mild – dose of food poisoning, brought on, I regret to say, by eating at the European Parliament. What, therefore, will happen if the animals we eat also start to suffer from fainting fits and dizzy spells, as I did? We must prevent any inclusion whatsoever of undesirable substances in animal feedingstuffs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should first of all like to thank Mr Wuori for his sound and critical report. Sound and critical, for he does not shrink back from pinpointing any sensitive areas in EU policy. One of those areas concerns fact that a number of international Union agreements still do not contain clauses for deferring an agreement in the event of a serious human rights violation. I should like to quote China in this connection, candidate for the 2008 Olympic Games. Commissioner Lamy has been hard at work concluding an agreement with China, also mainly within the WTO framework. But this coming Thursday, a widely supported motion will be discussed which will ask the Olympic Committee not to give China the Olympic Games in 2008, precisely in the light of human rights violations in Tibet, among others, and on account of the dubious way in which the country treats its flora and fauna. In fact, I support Mr Wuori in his opinion that our Parliament should be involved in the suspension of relations with third countries on account of irresponsible behaviour in terms of human rights. Moreover, our Parliament has been the initiator in this field on more than one occasion. I would refer to EU measures in the past against Nigeria and at present against Sudan and Burma. However, I should like to take the opportunity of drawing your attention to another point which, in my opinion, was neglected in the report, namely the freedom of religion. I will give you three examples. One is close to home, namely Turkey, where Syrian Christians are still being put behind bars if they actively profess their religion. The Netherlands has a community of 12 000 Syrian Christians from Turkey who have fled to Western Europe over the years. Surely that is very worrying for a country that would like to join the European Union. Then there is Vietnam, where over the past few months, Buddhist monks have increasingly been arrested on religious grounds. We will be discussing a resolution on this very topic on Thursday. And what is, as a matter of interest, the state of play with regard to the trade agreements with Vietnam? Then there is the continuous threat in respect of the Christians in Indonesia, especially on the Moluccas. That problem has also been highlighted in this House on several occasions, but what is the latest on the trade agreements, and what exactly is going on in that country in terms of human rights? I wish that next time we could address this point in isolation, and that is the message that I should like to drive home.

Political group: PPE-DE
To develop and harmonise public health at the highest level ought to be one of the tasks of the European Union if its raison d’être is not merely to concern itself chiefly with the movement of capital and goods. The recommendation contains some good intentions, but nothing about how they are to be put into practice. Yet even in the most highly developed countries of the European Union, in any case in France, public health is short of resources, personnel, premises and equipment. The idea of profitability is becoming more generalised. Local hospitals and maternity hospitals are being closed down. Because of staff shortages, nurses, carers and junior doctors have horrendous timetables. Healthcare, and health itself, are commodities which a part of the population is finding it increasingly difficult to afford. A proper public health policy implies disease prevention. Yet how can we prevent disease in a society wracked by unemployment and poverty, in which we are witnessing the reappearance of diseases that we thought had been eradicated, like tuberculosis? A civilised society which has the resources of the European Union at its disposal ought to provide everyone with free, high-quality healthcare. Its inability to do so is one example of its failure.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on 17 February, the European Council declared that the United Nations must remain at the centre of the international order and that it wished to attain the objective of disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully, saying that this is what the European people want; it declared that its support for the United Nations inspectors although saying that it did not want the inspections to continue indefinitely, and, in fact, the inspectors had put forward a plan for disarmament which also had a time limit. Today we are here in Parliament, not least on behalf of those European people, of that public opinion referred to by the Council, to hold to account first of all those European governments which have supported, are assisting and are participating in a unilateral war which we condemn unreservedly. We are on day seven, and the dramatic events tell us that it will not be a blitzkrieg. Nevertheless, our anti-war position does not mean siding with that regime, which must account for its crimes before international courts, and it does not mean being indifferent to the dangerous path being opened up by the violation of international law and the many other violations, such as the use of prohibited weapons, the suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people, the treatment of prisoners and the fate of the Kurdish people. Then there is the Middle East. Certain interventionist quarters have said that this war will resolve the Middle East question. We do not think this is the case. We can see that things are getting increasingly worse: on the one hand, this war is helping the extremist, group Hamas, and, on the other, the Israeli army is continuing its actions. Lastly, I would like to ask the European governments: what are you gaining from this terrible experience? I would like to say to the Member States: incorporate, introduce federalist elements into your European foreign policy. If you do not do so, we will not have a common policy. Can you not see that, even without powers, the Commission is currently a point of reference while the role of the High Representative has been destroyed because of your differences? Once again – it has already happened in the Balkans – we are powerless and at a highly critical time. Remember that the sum total of 15 or 25 national policies which satisfy longstanding interests, will never constitute a European foreign policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is certainly not the first time that this House has talked about a war in Chechnya, nor is it the first time that we have talked about a problem in the Caucasus. Mind you, compared with the war that took place in 1995, the motives behind this war are much more understandable. The events which have taken place in Dagestan and Chechnya in recent weeks render it almost imperative that this pressing problem be resolved through military action. The problem in the Caucasus, in Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia is actually nothing new. It has been around for decades, for centuries, and it is therefore also quite important that in our resolution, we express the view that in general in this area, the problem has to be tackled and a solution has to be sought, something which is important for the region as a whole and which will bring stability to the entire region as well as contribute to its development. The proposal in the resolution to convene a New Millennium Conference in which European partners and organisations would also participate and provide structures for such negotiations is, therefore, very important. I hope that our Russian negotiating partners will take this up accordingly. The European Union also has to look into the problem of refugees, and very closely at that. Hundreds of thousands are again fleeing. We still have things to do as regards the refugee problem from previous conflicts. I would like to call upon the Commission to make proposals as quickly as possible in this regard as to how the problem can be solved; how a way can be found for the refugees to survive the winter, which is imminent. I think that being able to help in this area is a matter of the deepest concern for Europe.

Political group: PSE
I have only praise to give. I think this is very good indeed and I want to thank you very much for your answer. My only problem is that these questions do not get out to the public. Just as the discussion earlier today showed, providing information is a part of the development process for creating understanding for the fact that a variety of measures are required. We must try, I believe, both in the Council and the European Parliament, as well as in other EU bodies such as Information Offices, to make the importance of providing information more widely understood. Our citizens would then have a better understanding of the need for increased legal and policing measures which are necessary on an international basis. We are certainly in agreement about that. My next question is therefore this: are we going to get any information later on about the results which emerge at this centre in Bangkok?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in recent days, immense natural catastrophes in which quite a number of people have died have again occurred on the banks of the River Tisza. I would therefore ask the President to send our condolences to both the Romanian and Hungarian parliaments. At the same time, we must be alert to the kind of environmental risks these natural catastrophes may entail for our common European environment. The Tisza flows into the Danube delta, which is one of the world’s most significant protected areas of environmental interest.

Political group: ELDR