GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, if the Council is concerned about the collapse of e-commerce, financial scandals and the resulting deterioration of the situation, there is good reason to be! The people who have good reason to worry are the employees who have already been made redundant or are about to be made redundant by the companies concerned, even though they are in no way responsible for the anarchy of your economy, which is as unfair as it is irrational. Confronted with this genuine evil, however, the only solution being proposed is to strengthen prudential rules or to improve supervision, as if the financial conglomerates could be supervised from above by the political authorities responsible for protecting them. So as to prevent the mere sound of the word ‘supervision’ from angering the financial conglomerates, the report promises them that the directive will respect the need for confidentiality. And so, those who pretend to believe that a few prudential rules and a few coordinators who have no real power can eradicate speculation, scandals and financial crises from the capitalist economy will be those who therefore vote in favour of this report. Even a vote by the European Parliament cannot turn an insipid recommendation into a magic potion to ward off the evils of capitalism. Your economy based on the quest for private profits and on competition is even more unpredictable than the weather. Although we can predict unsettled weather three days in advance, who can predict the ups and downs of the stock market from one day to the next? By voting against this text, we are expressing our opposition to an economic system which is stupid and dangerous for society.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to begin by congratulating Mr Watson on the excellent report he has presented us. He is right to emphasise the need for effective, clear and rapid measures to prevent and combat all acts of terrorism whatever form they may take and whatever they may be trying to achieve. We reject and condemn all terrorist acts, which are unacceptable because of the blind violence that characterises them and which mainly affect innocent citizens. We know that terrorism is one of the most terrible challenges facing our societies. Over the last ten years, the European Union has seen an increase in the number of violent and terrorist acts. This increase demonstrates that traditional methods of judicial and police cooperation are inadequate, particularly if we take account of the fact that new forms of terrorism are continually arising, such as computer or environmental terrorism. We also know that these acts increasingly stem from the activity of international organised networks, which manage to exploit the various legal loopholes and the diversity of national legislation. It is deplorable that most Member States do not have specific legislation in this field. Only six Member States, including Portugal, have specific legislation and out of these six, only four, again including Portugal, have adopted a definition of the concept of terrorism in their legislation. By adopting the principle of solidarity in the fight against terrorism, the Treaty of Amsterdam has opened up new possibilities for coordinated action by the European Union. With the commitments given in Tampere, terrorism has become an integral part of the global approach to fighting crime. The report we are now debating warrants our support, particularly because it advocates the approximation and harmonisation of the legislation of the fifteen Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have a question to ask the Commissioner which all the Members who have spoken have asked. Why did the Commission not consult the European Parliament on the reform of the Advisory Committee when this House asked to be consulted during the previous parliamentary term when this proposal was being considered? The Commissioner must answer this question and should also, in particular, formally undertake to ensure that this does not happen again in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
I too should like to congratulate Mr Skinner on his excellent report, which addresses an issue that I consider to be of the utmost importance. If the European Union wishes to establish itself as the most economically dynamic region in the world, as was decided at the Lisbon Summit, it must ensure that investments, particularly in SMEs, which create jobs and which support growth sectors, are given the necessary funding. We wish to promote a dynamic spirit of entrepreneurship in Europe, but there are still countless difficulties blocking the path of people wanting to become entrepreneurs and to carry out profitable projects. The problems requiring rapid resolution throughout the European Union range from the administrative aspects, such as the often pointless bureaucracy which wastes time, energy and money, to the provision of funding. Venture capital companies have a major role to play in this field and the European Union must make more rapid progress if it wishes to catch up, in particular with the United States, which is currently far ahead of us. We feel that the Commission’s proposal is a step in the right direction, although I also think that we must move ahead more quickly, as stated in the amendment requesting the Commission to submit an action plan for 2000 in the field of risk capital and to adopt an integrated approach that combines all the Community instruments in a coherent way. First and foremost, Europe needs to focus increasingly on the merit of projects rather than on the personal wealth of entrepreneurs, as still happens. If the banks' practice of requiring personal guarantees from individuals is highly debatable, it is quite unacceptable where venture capital businesses are concerned. There is still a need to give entrepreneurs easier access to venture capital, and this requires much more active and efficient provision of information on the way in which it is used.

Political group: PSE
I welcome Mr Bowe’s report as a balanced and considered approach to the important subject of the release into the environment of GMOs. The three key issues covered in Mr Bowe’s report are: environmental liability, antibiotics and gene transfer. On environmental liability I tend to take the Commission’s view that this is best dealt with through horizontal legislation. On antibiotics I would be in favour of a ban on the use in GMOs of genes conferring antibiotic resistance. As far as gene transfer is concerned I believe measures must be foreseen in the new Directive to control the release of GMOs which can outcross with other plants. A strong Directive which deals with concerns about the environment and the health risks of GMOs could go a long way to ensure we realise the potential benefits from GMOs and avoid the pitfalls.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, for that clarification. We discussed China this morning, and there was a great deal of agreement in the House about how important it is to have dialogue and cooperation where human rights too are concerned. If I interpret your answer correctly, you are saying that there is no justification for the references to the EU’s visa regulations made by the French, Danish and, now most recently, the Swedish Governments when President Chen Shui-bian was refused a visa after he had received an invitation on a private basis. As I now understand it, there is, then, no decision by EU ministers which must be adhered to in this case. Instead, each country can make its own judgment on the matter. Do you not think it strange that these judgments are made? It sends very odd signals to China at a time when we are so anxious to emphasise the dialogue on human rights and to strike the right note in discussing this issue with Taiwan.

Political group: ELDR
The rapporteur’s endeavours in this apparent ‘mission impossible’ to give words their real meanings is worthy of praise. The term ‘cooperation’ means supporting the development of companies in third countries, as suggested in the title of the first communication that laid the basis for the report; it also means reforming State-owned companies, which are the basis of public services in these countries, and the need to assess all possible solutions, as suggested in the title of the second. Such support is, however, straitjacketed by the predominant concept of companies that can only be regulated by the market, which has adopted the predominant strategy of structural adjustments, the predominant solution to which is to dismantle and privatise public services. The rapporteur questioned ideological concepts and raised questions from a perspective that was not strictly commercial. It is significant that he referred to the water supply and drainage, to education and to health services, which, in his opinion, should fall within the competences of the State and local authorities. For local investors and SMUs, in the case of privatisation, to proceed as a matter of priority with the proposal that each TNC should commit as a minimum investment 0.7% of its gross turnover or 5% of its net profit into new investments, as Offset projects in these countries each year, in the context in which we live, is verging on provocation. This is how this report was greeted by political forces that felt threatened by the presence of a rapporteur tabling alternatives to improve what had appeared incurable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, China was yet another of our trading partners to realise during negotiations in Beijing that the European Union has specific, independent weight as a major global trading area. The Commission represented coherent positions on the part of the European Union with the support of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and implemented many of them. Competition and the reciprocal opening of markets, freedom of establishment and in the provision of services, intellectual property rights, environmental protection and partnership for sustainable development are just a few examples. For the rest, our position is based on the principles of free and fair global trade and is shaped by the European model of a social, ecological market economy, many fundamental points of which are already included in European framework legislation. We expressly thank Commissioner Lamy and his team – and I expressly include his predecessor Sir Leon Brittan here – for the excellent result; the Commission negotiated successfully and competently; China has moved a long way towards opening its markets and basically accepts the rules specified by the World Trade Organisation in 1994 and further developed since. There is no need to outline the specific successes in detail. They range from reductions in customs tariffs, from starting rates of often over 40% to an average of 10%, to the opening of import and export monopolies via joint ventures in the service sector, trade chains and medium-term freedom of establishment for independent European undertakings. So the results are clear. But integrating China into world trade also means ensuring that it is in a position to respect and apply the rules of the World Trade Organisation, act as a responsible partner and take on new responsibilities. We therefore thank Commissioner Patten for his assurance that technical assistance, training for China’s specialists and for those responsible for the new chapter in cooperation will be coordinated with the United States. But we feel that something else is needed; greater understanding on China’s part of the European Union’s commercial position on the reciprocal opening of the markets. We are counting on China’s supporting the European Union’s proposals for a comprehensive new round of WTO talks in the short term. In the long term, we would stress the implications of a more intensive trading partnership with China for peace in Asia, Europe and the world as a whole. We feel that China will, in the long term, see the obvious need for the rapid economic and social development of China to be fostered within a framework of open markets and democratic reform. On behalf of the PPE Group, therefore, I welcome the successful outcome of negotiations with China and call on the Council to put this result in political order so that the European Parliament is able to adopt this important decision.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am deliberately refraining from entering into these cheap polemics, especially on the part of Mr Pirker, but want to keep the discussion at a certain level and stick to the facts. It is a fact that the Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia did indeed face difficulties in the first weeks, which were politically motivated, and that Mr Pirker in particular grossly insulted the head of the Centre, whom he has cited today as a witness to show how well things are going. It is a fact – and I noted that in my first statement today; the ladies and gentlemen who talk so big were not even there on Monday – that things have, thank God, improved because Dr Winkler, the head of the Centre, has endeavoured, as has the new Austrian Government representative, to straighten it all out. But it is also a fact that the situation remains precarious; and here I, like Dr Winkler, must also state that unfortunately not just the Austrian Government but also some other governments do not give the Monitoring Centre sufficient support. There certainly is an urgent need to call on all the governments – as I propose – to support the Monitoring Centre. But it is also a fact that, sad to say, the referendum announced for Austria, which representatives of the European and in particular the Austrian People’s Party who are sitting here in this Chamber opposed only a few days ago, could dangerously aggravate the situation and mood in Austria again; for it is reviving anti-European feelings that will certainly not do the work of this Monitoring Centre any good. And that is why I want to state my view here and call on the government, on those responsible in that government, not to hold that referendum, so as not to stir up new hatred, not to reawaken an anti-European mood again – something a party like the Austrian People’s Party, which was always pro-European, is in fact unlikely to want. I am firmly against that kind of anti-European mood and I place my hopes in this House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my side has admittedly lost in a key vote, but the process must continue. We must now ensure that the Council forms an opinion. If we prevaricate and postpone this issue, the Council can continue to hide behind its inaction. I therefore propose that we reject the rapporteur's motion and now hold the final vote so that the ball is the Council's court. We still have the second reading and the mediation process. A delay at this point will not help: we want to move forward on this issue, and so I ask you to reject Mr Meijer's motion. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, this debate and situation have come at the worst possible time for the EU and is causing a lot of harm. Just think, ladies and gentlemen: we should and must defend the European agricultural model at the WTO talks in Seattle. We have made a decision that there should be no import ban on British meat but, nonetheless, within the EU – an EU which should represent a free economic area at its best – a decision is being made to impose an import ban. This is an absolutely inconceivable situation! The English have had to suffer the inconveniences of BSE for quite long enough. They have done all they can to get the problem off the agenda and solved. That was a very commendable thing. It seems inconceivable that we should take a joint decision to lift the ban on the export of British meat, and yet we decide, for our part, that the ban on importing it has not been lifted at all. Just think of the future, when we are discussing EU enlargement. Let us take the example of Poland. If Poland’s agricultural standards quickly reach the average standards in the EU, it will just about be able to feed the whole of the EU on its own. That is why we must defend the European agricultural model at the WTO talks, so as to safeguard exports in the future since, in the years and decades to come, we will not find a solution to the problems of agriculture anywhere else but in exports. These are basic principles. In a way both England and France are guilty: it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If, in Finland, my country, we were to make feed which had had sludge added to it, that plant would be closed down the next day – you can be quite sure of that. There is no way you can produce feed from sludge. We in the EU are allowing this situation to continue, although it was banned in 1991. We will certainly have to take a good look at ourselves and contemplate what sort of image we want to present to the outside world, and how we should accomplish that, in this very difficult and delicate situation, when we join the WTO talks and when we consider the issue of EU enlargement and what the future will look like. These sorts of crises have to be dealt with very quickly. We can do it by ourselves, and only by ourselves, and we must do so as quickly as possible.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you can see, I am not Mrs Kauppi, but she is the rapporteur, and I am not. She has asked me to present this report briefly for her today because a week ago she became a mother. On behalf of this House and on my own behalf I would like to offer her our warmest congratulations. She is the mother of a strapping boy, both are doing well and she would like to combine work and family as quickly as possible and resume her work in this House. Warm congratulations, Piia, and all the best! Turning to her report on the Commission proposal, I can say that it does not criticise the Commission, neither does it raise any cause for concern as to how the Commission has proceeded, but rather as to how the Council has proceeded. Essentially, the Commission proposal seeks to achieve for direct taxation what has already been proposed elsewhere for indirect taxation. The main innovations are the introduction of the possibility for two or more Member States to carry out joint controls where a taxable person is active in more than one Member State, that is, it is a question of common sense and an orderly shaping of the single market. A second point is the simplification of the procedure and a third the removal of ambiguities from the present text which, as we have heard, is already 25 years old and anyone with their eyes and ears open knows that a lot has been done and changed in that time. The main problem is one of procedure. In keeping with its normal practice, the Commission has based its proposal on Article 95 of the Treaty, which means that the codecision procedure applies to this proposal. Parliament has always supported this choice of legal basis, for reasons that are easy to understand, and I would also like to say why, namely that we are of the opinion that administrative cooperation does not affect material tax law, but rather seeks to ensure that the single market works well. We therefore welcome the Commission’s legal stance and we would point out that the Council has already on several occasions decided unilaterally to change the legal basis to either Article 93 or Article 94 of the Treaty without giving any convincing reasons, in so doing removing Parliament’s right of codecision and understating the measure’s importance for the single market. The most recent case concerned two Commission proposals on administrative cooperation in the field of VAT and an amendment to Directive 77/799/EEC, where the Council has recently re-consulted Parliament on the change in legal basis. Parliament rejected that request on 2 September 2003. Since we anticipate that the Council will also change the legal basis for the present proposal, the rapporteur sees no reason to change or re-evaluate her position at this juncture and we therefore propose that the Commission draft be approved in full as proposed on the basis of Article 95. By so doing, we will also be showing with a broad majority that we are ready, minded and determined to co-decide in this matter, because we believe it concerns the single market.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would, of course, like to start by congratulating all the rapporteurs. Having said that, I would like to point out that the approval of these two directives constitutes an important step within the construction of European labour law and, therefore, in the construction of a social Europe, and all this, furthermore, by means of dialogue and mutual concessions from positions which were initially comprehensible. Of course, the inclusion of the self-employed may go against the entrepreneurial spirit, as my country maintained. In relation to the general framework for information and consultation, the Chapter IV of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, entitled ‘Solidarity’, begins with Article 27, which establishes, under the title ‘Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking’, that ‘Workers or their representatives must, at the appropriate levels, be guaranteed information and consultation in good time in the cases and under the conditions provided for by Community law and national laws and practices’. Article 136 of the European Union Treaty already indicated that social dialogue was an objective of the Community and the Member States. It therefore seems logical and necessary that, outside other specific directives, such as Directive 94/45/EC, a single directive should establish a general framework which lays down minimum requirements for the exercise of the right to information and consultation in undertakings and workplaces within the Community. These rights, previously laid down in the European Social Charter of 1961, and in the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, of 1989, are now, as I have said, included in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. It should surprise nobody that workers, via their representatives, should be aware of the situation and development of the undertaking, the decisions which are to be taken and their repercussions and effects for the future, since their existence and, above all, subsistence, are often linked to the undertaking. Of course, the content of these rights must be aimed at strengthening the undertaking, increasing employment possibilities and adapting workers to new or revised production processes. Nevertheless, experience demonstrates that the mechanisms have not always worked well: workers have become involved late in the process of decision-making, when decisions had already been taken. I therefore feel that the content of Article 4 is particularly worth highlighting... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE