GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
What you call a European Union ‘Mediterranean policy’ merely consists of creating the political conditions to allow the large industrial conglomerates of Europe to take advantage of the low wages, natural resources and government contracts of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, and secure new outlets for their products. That ‘cooperation’ is the cooperation of the wolf with the lamb, and the poor majority of the population only get the dubious advantage of being exploited for the benefit not just of local potentates, but of European businesses too. For two centuries France’s Mediterranean policy consisted of the colonisation of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. Italy’s was the occupation of Libya, and Britain’s the shameless looting of Egypt. Voices have been rightly raised in this very House against the dictatorship that holds sway in Tunisia and the one that continues to rule in Morocco, even if it is more moderate. So why do we forget the material, military and diplomatic support France has given those regimes? Why do we forget France’s responsibility for the war it waged in Algeria and for the tragic situation that still exists in that country today? Our solidarity is with the working classes of the Mediterranean region and that means we are opposed to the cooperation between owners and rulers promoted by this resolution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all the important points have already been made, so I can only emphasise them once more, but I am glad to do so. I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Savary, on his report and for succeeding in getting the directive on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system through the various hoops of the parliamentary system. This was a matter of urgency, because interoperability is a fundamental prerequisite for liberalising international freight traffic, and this is something that we have together got on track, as it were, through the railways package. The problem with conventional rail systems, as compared with high-speed trains, is that the various national systems in Europe are largely incompatible, yet they have involved enormous investment and can only be converted in stages through rebuilding and modification, and this needs to be done whilst still providing a rail service and in the face of continuing competition from other modes of transport. Nevertheless, the convergence process needs to be stepped up for the sake of the railways themselves. The directive, therefore, needs to be implemented as soon as possible. This is also to be welcomed if an internal market is to be created for the supply industry. I hope that rapid progress will be made with the bodies and procedures envisaged for establishing technical specifications and that they will initially concentrate on what can be achieved most quickly, that is to say on train control, safety and signalling equipment. The rapporteur and this House have secured the inclusion of social provisions as well as technical specifications in the directive, and also strategic consideration of the candidate countries when drafting the TSIs. That is positive. As regards safety, I would, of course, have welcomed a more clear-cut vote in favour of independent third-party certification bodies, given that there is still a monopoly situation in some countries and that there are, therefore, conflicts of interest when it comes to certification or rather self-certification. It seems to me that referring to subsidiarity in this context is too simplistic. I am happy to support Mrs Jeggle in this area and I am now pinning my hopes on the railways safety package.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Court of Auditors’ conclusions resemble those we have seen in many recent years. It is not possible for them to come up with a positive opinion. There is a need for the Member States to take greater responsibility. They administer approximately 80% of the budget and they do not do it particularly well. I am naturally pleased that Denmark is not singled out for attack this year. I am a little surprised, however, that the Court of Auditors should again have volunteered a remark about the feta issue. In fact, that matter was closed a long time ago. In February, Mr Kinnock will be submitting a proposal for a reform of the Commission. This is perhaps one of the things we are to be tackling. One of the most important changes concerns the staff culture. It happens too rarely that employees are suspended or fired if they are incompetent or corrupt. There does exist the opportunity to dismiss incompetent employees on the basis of Article 52 of the staff regulations. This Article ought to be made use of, and in general it never is. This practice ought therefore to be changed. If we are to stamp out irregularities and fraud, we need to change the staff culture and the tendency for people’s being able to get away with murder if they have the right friends to cover for them. We should be cleaning up our act after previous scandals. What signals are being sent out to future leaders of the Commission if those responsible for the scandals can just carry on in good jobs? In this way, we shall never see a positive opinion from the Court of Auditors. We need to put our house in order following the mistakes of the past, both internally within the Commission and also in the Member States. Mr President, it is also an historic day today in so far as we for once witnessed one of our colleagues seeing the light, namely Mr Dell’Alba.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the course of these weeks we are shaping the future Constitution of the European Union, and I would like to add that never before has the public had such an opportunity to participate in and influence the creation of a constitution as during the Convention, and we made that possible by means of a European Parliament initiative. What is at stake here is not only effectiveness and transparency, but also greater parliamentarianism, accountability and accessibility for the public. In other words, not only the Union's future sustainability but also its ability to cope with enlargement is at issue. At this point I would particularly like to emphasise once again that the overall outcome of the Convention was, from Parliament's viewpoint, of course painful in many respects, but ultimately it was a balanced compromise that we are willing to accept in the greater interest. Mr President-in-Office, if there is talk about doing away with the Legislative Council, then let me make a perfectly serious observation: if the accession countries had a legislative body that functions as the Council does at present, then those countries would have been refused membership of the EU, because they would quite simply have failed to meet the basic requirements for legislative process, transparency and parliamentarianism. That is why we are insisting on the Legislative Council. A great deal has already been said about budgetary rights. On this issue, I also believe that the agreements whereby the final decision on own resources is taken by the Member States, whereby the Council decides on the multiannual budget framework after consulting and gaining the approval of Parliament, and this House has the final say on the annual budget plan, all that is ultimately a compromise. It is not acceptable for the informal Ecofin summit at Stresa to attempt to undermine long-standing parliamentary rights, to torpedo them in fact. Any attempt to restrict Parliament's rights in this area will come up against the combined and energetic resistance of a large majority of this House. That is why I am counting at this point on the presidency adopting a pro-European position, and to take on the faint hearts and the backward-looking members of the Council in order to achieve a satisfactory solution. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
It is particularly appropriate that Mr Monti is responding to this debate because the great conundrum with postal services is how to square an open market and free and fair competition with providing a service which is universally available to all, even in the remotest and least inhabited region of the European Union. In the hills and glens of Scotland and the rural borders and central belt, on the beautiful but fragile islands of the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland, there is real concern at possibly losing this essential service. Yet we all know that service quality can only improve if postal services, like all service industries, are given the financial and management freedom of the private sector and the spur of open, even international, competition. I would suggest that there is a solution. It is already employed widely in the transport sector. Air routes, ferry routes, train routes, bus routes, within and to these remoter areas are put out to tender. The bidder who offers to provide the specific service at a specific quality level and at the lowest subsidy level gets the contract. Let us call this a negative tender franchise. This permits desirable competition in providing these services under a publicly-supported but fully transparent franchise system. Why could not mail collection and delivery in a certain region be put to negative tender in this manner? The lowest subsidy would win the franchise for a certain period of time. Why could not the sub-post office in a remote village also be put out to this sort of negative tender? It would therefore be up to the appropriate democratically accountable government body, local, regional or national – probably under overall EU supervision – to set the service criteria and the financial resources for meeting this particular social purpose. Otherwise the postal services can be left to all the demands and constraints of the marketplace.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Schnellhardt, for his work on an incredibly wide-ranging and complicated area. The large number of amendments also show, of course, that the final product will look different to what the Commission had initially proposed. In one area – namely, that of the way in which game is dealt with – the Commission’s proposal would have created major problems if had been put into effect. The Commission’s proposal was in danger of having an extremely negative effect upon hunting and the sale of game in shops. I believe that, by means of the amendments now adopted by the committees, we have avoided the risks that existed. It is also important to see that a variety of national supervision models can be used to achieve the common objective of good food hygiene. I am therefore especially grateful that account has been taken of the fact that game can be monitored in different ways, that we have different climatic conditions and therefore need different refrigeration periods and that we can also organise training in different ways.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I actually have a further question. It is very important that regulations governing health and safety at work are applied in the field of shipping, especially where oil tankers are concerned. It is also of crucial importance to comply with environmental legislation. Since the Erika disaster, we have had several projects in Europe that have aimed to improve environmental legislation with regard to oil tankers. Yesterday an oil spillage was discovered close to a nature conservation area in the archipelago off Turku, in Finland, probably due to some breach of environmental legislation – or at least the reason for it has not yet become apparent. I would therefore like the Commissioner to comment on what measures can also be taken with regard to environmental legislation so that culprits may be identified, and on whether it is possible that the Commission might also take action regarding the kinds of oil-related accidents that occurred last year in Gotland, on the French coast (with regard to the Erika disaster), and now in Turku in Finland.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to extend a warm thank you to Mrs Matikainen-Kallström for the effort she has put into this report. The European Union is prepared to invest EUR 15 million, equivalent to SEK 120 million, in a long-term loan. The desire is for this to be given to Europe’s poorest country, which has a gross national product as low as that of the poorest countries in Africa. Moldova is a country where the community, or society, has abdicated responsibility in a number of areas. The average wage among State employees is MDL 230, which is to say approximately SEK 150 or about EUR 19. The lowest pension is a mere quarter of this, or MDL 64. Because the State’s finances have been completely undermined, neither State employees nor pensioners receive their payments on time. Many have to wait for over a year for their money, and sometimes even longer. Moldova is a deeply tragic example of the devastating consequences of Soviet Communism, an appalling ideology which has destroyed whole societies, countries and peoples spiritually, morally, socially and economically. What we see fully revealed here is the harvest of the dragon’s teeth sown by communism. According to the Swedish professor, Per Ronnås, Moldova has seen a more devastating peacetime fall in its standard of living than any other country in modern times. At the same time, all the intelligence about people’s exposure to extensive torture by the police, involving electric shocks and suffocation with the aid of plastic bags placed over the head, is a very serious source of concern. Moldova is today experiencing general migration. A quarter of the country’s four million people are estimated to have travelled abroad in search of work. Many poor and destitute girls have ended up in the hands of crime syndicates which degrade them and exploit them sexually. We can do nothing other than support this country, Europe’s very poorest.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I too would like to thank the chairman of the Court of Auditors for their report, and the Commissioner for their response to it. Yet again, public opinion will be the first casualty when the news hits the streets that there is to be no positive statement of assurance for European expenditure this time round either. Everyone knows – and this will crop up time and again – that the Member States spend the most money. So they must be the first port of call when it comes to raising revenue as I see it. It is also no secret that the lion’s share of expenditure goes on agriculture. A number of years ago, the Commission established, at Parliament’s insistence, that if there are irregularities, this could mean an additional financial correction of 25% for the Member States. I understand that the Court of Auditors is studying this, and would it not have been interesting if the Court of Auditors had studied what effects this had? Could the same principle be applied to other sectors? I would be very interested to know. I completely share Mr Blak’s dissatisfaction with the fact that the Court of Auditor’s report does not contain exact figures. Is the reliability of the expenditure 5% or 7%, and is it true that reliability is less than 3% in the case of agricultural expenditure? The Court of Auditor’s constant refrain is that they do not have sufficient staff to analyse this. That may well be true, but when the Court of Auditors reaches a verdict, I take it as read that it will be based on exact figures. What I would like to know is why these figures cannot be published? I also think we should set up a mediation committee for agriculture. Then, any disputes between the Commission and the financial corrections could be brought before it. Would the Commission and the Court of Auditors be prepared to endorse this proposal? On a final note, Madam President, this financial report covers 1999. The Commission is bound to point out that it did not take office until September 1999, and will therefore deny all responsibility. I think it is high time we heard the last of that. I feel the Commission must give us a clear indication of when it expects to be able to deliver a positive statement of assurance, for we cannot keep postponing it year after year, as we have done since 1995.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, regarding the following resolution, my group felt bound to sign the joint resolution on religious freedoms in China in order to demonstrate that, in our view, there are no borders when it comes to defending freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. On the other hand, most of the Members of my group are totally opposed to any reference to the Falun Gong movement in this resolution. We have therefore requested a separate vote and a roll-call vote on the two paragraphs relating to this issue and we shall vote against these paragraphs.

Political group: GUE-NGL
On the pretext of attacking fundamentalist terrorism, the leaders of Russia are conducting a despicable war in Chechnya. The Russian army is chiefly making attacks on the civilian population, an increasing proportion of whom are being forced to flee to neighbouring regions, only to be packed together in inhuman conditions. Once again it is the civilian population which is suffering from the consequences of the destruction of towns, villages and infrastructure of a country which is already very poor. The war is also a criminal one as regards the Russian people itself. Thousands of young men are forced to wage this dirty war which can have no positive outcome for either themselves or for their parents and elders. At a time when the transition to a capitalist economy is having the effect of causing a fall in production levels and the considerable impoverishment of the majority of the population, considerable sums of money are being swallowed up by the war effort, not to mention the cost of the corruption associated with it. We denounce the Russian leaders who are responsible for this war, but we also denounce the leaders of the Western world who make do with a mild reproach, while supporting Yeltsin and his clan, anxious as they are to protect them. In bombing the towns and villages of Chechnya, the Russian army is doing what the Western armies did a few months ago in bombing Kosovo and Serbia. Two wrongs do not make a right, but these crimes do shed light on the deep complicity of the governments, to the detriment of the peoples concerned. This is the explanation for our abstention.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Like other Members, I welcomed the drafting, the vote and the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000 and I too joined the House in celebrating its achievements. We can still campaign, however, for further progress – which is something I can always hope for and even seek – in areas affecting society and the life of citizens. If you read all the articles of our Charter very closely, you can see the obvious benefit of having a document that is common to the current 15 members and to the future 25. With this Charter, the Europe of the citizen is finally taking shape! That is why, as rapporteur, and supporter of a European Constitution, I want our Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated into this Constitution. Of course, this does not prevent me from strongly criticising the Europe we have today, which is too liberal with regard to economic issues, too submissive to financial bodies and the stock markets, non-existent in the political arena when working with the United States to manage major global problems. I believe, however, that with a European Constitution which incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we will have the ability to make progress in a direction that will enable us to profoundly change the Europe we have today and of which I am critical.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I asked for the floor in order to inform the House that the Pakistani authorities have allowed the crew of the Tasman Spirit to return to their homes in Greece and the Philippines. Following attempts over several months by the Greek Government, with the then Minister for Foreign Affairs Georgos Papandreos, which of course have continued up to today, and the provision of guarantees by it, following the reaction by the European Parliament, which passed a resolution on the subject, and following action by the troika and by Commissioner Chris Patten and the visit to Pakistan, the desired result has been achieved. Having noted, therefore, how action by the institutions of the European Union and its Member States can be successful when properly coordinated, let us thank those responsible for handling this issue.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I very much agree with what Mrs Ferreira has just said. Demand for GM food is not driven by consumers. On the contrary, it is driven by – and is only for the benefit of – multinational GM companies. The United States' concern for the starving populations of the world is as genuine as George Bush's concern for the Iraqi people's rights. By the way, Iraq currently has a GM ban. The United States should not be allowed to force this to be changed. If the United States and GM multinationals are so concerned about world hunger why do they not put the resources spent on research and PR for GM into helping them fend for themselves, not into forcing them to become even more reliant on multinational companies to grow their own food? They should also stop exploiting them. In relation to the coexistence issue, this is a myth. Unless crops are grown, harvested, processed, eaten, and even the waste disposed of in laboratories, it is inevitable that there will be contamination. What are we going to do in Europe? Are we going to start introducing Schengen agreements for bees, birds and the wind and also ensure that we do not have any kind of cross-pollination? It is absolutely impossible! When we talk about the polluter-pays principle, the multinationals must be held accountable for the fact that conventional farmers, and in particular organic farmers, are not going to be allowed to do what they have done in the past. This is all about profit and greed. The consumers do not want GM food, so why are we being forced into it just for the benefit of multinational companies? What we have agreed in Parliament, in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, does not go far enough. The threshold is far too high, since a lower one could be achieved. Personally, I believe a zero threshold is the only one acceptable.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I apologise to my colleagues in this debate for not anticipating that the debate was going to be brought forward. I was expecting it to start at 4.30 p.m. I had the opportunity to visit Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan briefly with the Central Asian Delegation at the end of September and the beginning of October 2002. I have to say that all the signs are that there is a danger of Kazakhstan slipping into authoritarianism. There is increasing intimidation and persecution of the press. The case of Mr Duvanov, sentenced to three and a half years in jail is well known and has been mentioned. The case of Irina Petrushova with Respublika weekly, sentenced to one and a half years in jail is another example. And there is a series of new criminal cases. A new law on the creation of opposition parties requires 50 000 citizens' signatures before they can be registered. Many of our parties in the European Union would not be able to register that level of support! Of course, there is the increasing pressure on the opposition. We still have problems with regard to legislation, particularly the fact that the crime and the practice of torture still exist and there is no clear definition of what torture is. Clearly, we want a dialogue in Kazakhstan between the government and the opposition; we want them to respect international law. In the meantime, we ask the Council and Commission to raise these questions firmly at the next meeting between the Council, the Commission and the government of Kazakhstan.

Political group: PSE