GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Commission proposal misleadingly confines itself to an administrative matter which does not even merit discussion and deliberately overlooks the way in which direct Community aid is distributed to farm holdings and the worsening situation of small farm holdings. According to the scant information contained in the report and from the farm accounting data network, 23.2% of the farms in the network are paid less than EUR 1 000 per annum in direct aid. The actual figure is much higher if we take account of farms outside the network, which are obviously small holdings, meaning that far more than 23.2% of all Community holdings receive a mere 1.4% of total direct aid. This item of information, which the Commission deliberately omits, proves that statements by senior Commission officials to the effect that the supposed aim of the Community budget and direct aid is to iron out inequalities between the rich and poor farming regions of the European Union and between large and small holdings are pure hypocrisy. As a result, 20% of the large farm holdings in the European Union receive 80% of Community subsidies, as the former Commissioner, Mr MacSharry discovered to his surprise and, unfortunately, the situation is getting worse. Because the way in which direct aid is distributed benefits large farm holdings at the expense of small farms, thereby constantly increasing the income differential between rich and poor farming regions and between large, capitalist-style holdings and small, family-run farms, because the way in which direct aid is distributed is helping to wipe out small holdings and because the Commission proposal makes no attempt to get to the nub of the problem, the members of the Community Party of Greece will be voting against the Commission proposal and the parliamentary report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Menéndez del Valle’s report is a bad report for three reasons: its one-sidedness makes it intellectually indifferent. It espouses Arafat’s argument unreservedly and completely overlooks what is today’s most pressing question: how can a democracy combat kamikaze terrorism effectively? Then it is morally reprehensible because it puts terrorists and the victims of terrorism on the same level. And you get the impression that some people think the idea that the Jews should respond instead of doing nothing and letting themselves be killed like in the good old days is rather shocking or scandalous. Lastly, it is politically sterile because it locks Europe into a position of powerlessness on the grounds that it cannot be recognised as impartial and therefore capable of acting as mediator. That is why this report’s fate can be predicted even before it has been adopted, which, unfortunately, it will be; it will join the countless other plans and texts that have been stillborn.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the aim of this report is to call upon the Council of the European Union to fulfil the commitments it has made as regards the ratification and effective establishment of the European Criminal Court. Credit is due to the Danish Presidency for having made every endeavour to maintain a united Union position. However, the General Affairs Council has assumed a very ambiguous position regarding the possibility of concluding bilateral agreements, following the offensive launched by the current US Administration in an attempt to obtain immunity for all US citizens across the board and the willingness to accept this demand displayed by a number of European countries, including Italy – something which particularly pains me – which, apart from being my native country, was also the first Member State to ratify the Treaty of Rome. I would therefore like to stress how shameful it is that the United States should have gone so far as to resort to threatening to impose sanctions on the countries which have ratified or intend to ratify the International Criminal Court Statute, and emphasise that there can be no agreements allowing those who have debased themselves by committing crimes against humanity or genocide to do so with impunity. Since the Rome Statute does not allow for derogations from this requirement, any agreement to that effect is to be deemed not to be compatible. That applies to the 15 Member States, but also to the countries which are going to join the Union and the countries with which the Union enjoys relations. The Council therefore needs to make every effort to hold a frank dialogue with the US Administration and to present to us a report stating a clear position on the compatibility of any potential bilateral agreements with the Rome Statute, before the Copenhagen European Council takes place.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I too want to thank Mr Glante, on behalf of my party, for producing a very creditable report. He has done a lot of work to promote this idea, listened to the various parties and achieved a good end result. I heartily support cogeneration, which is an environmental and energy policy instrument for increasing energy efficiency and improving the security of energy supplies. As Mr Paasilinna just said, we in Finland have good things to say about cogeneration. Producing a directive to apply to the Union as a whole is a difficult process, because the directive is a technically demanding one and circumstances and practices vary greatly between the Member States. Our group supports the compromises drafted by the rapporteur and hopes the directive will now speedily move forward. In my opinion it is important that this issue should be taken forward, albeit one step at a time. The EU is very dependent on imports of energy. This creates uncertainty, and rising import ratios increase the risk of supplies being interrupted. It is essential to increase the share of cogeneration. This directive can create a framework for increased cogeneration. The Member States must jointly approve the defined criteria whereby binding targets may be achieved. Experience has shown that if targets are not binding on Member States, progress is slow. The potential for cogeneration can be optimised when the various operators are aware of the opportunities that are available to exploit the technology and find compatible systems. Accordingly, it is particularly important that there is cooperation between different operators and that they can exchange information on good practices.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would very briefly like to give an explanation of vote, on behalf of the Group on the EQUAL report. We have followed a nominal list which was identical to that which we had agreed upon beforehand with the Socialist Group. The Socialist Group has now changed its mind and this is why the report is not as clear as it would have been. This is why we are abstaining. We want to ensure that the EQUAL report, which is very important for refugees, the elderly, the handicapped and women, simply goes ahead. It is regrettable that, due to the procedure, the report has received such unfavourable attention in this plenary session. I am convinced that the rapporteur’s nationality has played a certain role, which should not be of relevance in this Parliament. This is actually in conflict with European values and certainly with the parliamentary values which are referred to so often in this Parliament. These were our reasons for abstaining from the vote on this report. We want EQUAL to go ahead. We assent to the main thrust of it, but we deplore the procedure and especially the fact that some groups have exploited this procedure to their advantage.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with a prefatory remark in order to highlight the climate in which we are engaging in debate. The countries belonging to the European Community have at present a mountain of debt totalling EUR 4 700 billion. What that means is that, taken together, the countries belonging to the European Community owe EUR 4 700 billion. The annual interest payments alone, by which this debt is serviced, amount to EUR 230 billion per annum – more than double the European Union's Budget. I am sure that you, Mr President of the Commission, will agree with me when I say that it would be stupid and idiotic to open these floodgates even wider at the present time. I will now turn to the Stability and Growth Pact, for which we have framed rules that are very clear. With the objective of balancing budgets, the deficit may not exceed 3%, and sanctions become operative if this 3% rule is not adhered to. That is the point at issue, and that is what we have to deal with now. It was an enormous help to your country's budget, at the time you were at the head of its government, that these rules create confidence. This confidence led to lower interest rates, and that took a great deal of pressure off your budget. My second point is that I believe it really would be stupid to gamble away these advantages now. Mr President of the Commission, you said that there is a need in Europe for an authority that would have an undisputed role of economic governance. You may not have used those words, but what you meant is a European economic government. That is a view that I share. In my view, that can only be the Commission. What is required of such an economic government, though, is that it should lay down rules and see to it that they are adhered to, in order that they may send out the right messages. Mr President of the Commission, by your interview with Le Monde, you sent the wrong message. What we expect of you today is that you should make good that error and should do as Parliament demanded on 2 May 1997 and apply the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact – not flexibly, but strictly and consistently. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to refer to Mrs Angelilli's remarks at the beginning of the debate, when she spoke of this issue as being very complicated from a legal point of view. I have no legal training whatsoever but I have no doubt, as the Commissioner mentioned in his comments on forging together the chemistry of 15 countries, that mutual cooperation across the legal systems and judicial processes of 15 countries is very difficult to achieve. From the point of view of the ordinary citizens of Europe, however, I would suggest that the notion of the victim of a crime is a very simple one. Whether while abroad on holiday, for business purposes or perhaps as a student, the victim of a burglary, a violent personal crime, or a terrorist attack takes that crime very personally and expects something to be done about it. We all suffer, indeed the whole idea of Europe suffers, if nothing is done. Victims become disenchanted and frustrated, and to them the whole idea of Europe seems to have failed. We are, then, absolutely right to do all we can to press forward in the ways outlined in these two reports. We need to look for common rules and common understandings and agreements on legal aid so that, as far as possible, people can receive the sort of support that they would expect in their own country. The Commissioner spoke about the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is a step forward, but people expect, since this Charter exists, that they are entitled to rights in other countries. We have established a common market for goods and capital and made it work as a kind of rich playground. So, just as the previous report called for common European standards on asylum, we are absolutely right to be calling for common European standards for the victims of crime and access to legal aid.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Zimbabwe is quite simply an unparalleled tragedy. In his speech in Johannesburg, Mr Mugabe made the unspeakable assertion that these events, which are totally contrary to constitutional law, are even contributing to sustainable development. That really takes the biscuit! It would be hard to top that comment for audacity. It would be good if there were some louder voices in black Africa exposing this for what it really is: a power struggle on the part of a man who has failed in the course of 20 years to push forward a process of land reform that could have been carried out constitutionally. He only took action on this when his personal position was threatened, and only resorted to these tactics when his hold on power was at risk. We must never forget that this action is only partly directed again white farmers. It is above all aimed at Zimbabwe's opposition, which managed, despite enormous repression in the parliamentary elections, to achieve a very remarkable result, and which of course has a great deal of backing amongst the public. That is the real background to this. I would like to quote some comments from the South African newspaper the Daily Newspaper, because it is one of the voices in a country which is, after all, our ally, which is important. It has criticised the way the Mugabe Government has carried out land reform as brutal, and as a means of bringing production to a standstill, which is futile. This paper has pointed out that Mr Mugabe is attempting to propagate a myth when he says he has the backing of all Zimbabweans. We know after all that there is a strong opposition and that it is not therefore legitimate, and I am quoting now, to talk about 'my Zimbabweans and my Zimbabwe', while ignoring his many opponents, and that Mr Mugabe is creating a false impression when he alleges that Zimbabwe is, as it were, his property. But as far as I understand he is in the process of selling off that property to his own family, so that the occupation of land is being misused to bestow gifts on his family members. As I have already said, the European Union should be willing to support a legal and constitutional process of land reform, but it should not support such machinations. We have to say that very clearly to our partner countries.

Political group: PSE
I am delighted that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and now Parliament as a whole, has adopted paragraph 15 with its positive wording concerning European states’, especially Ukraine’s, future opportunities to become members of the EU. Originally, that was an amendment I tabled in the committee. I also welcome the fact that Parliament approved my Amendment 21, supported by the Group of the European People’s Party in its entirety and clearly condemning those ‘who use violence in the name of religion’. It is especially important to issue such repudiations in these times of Islamicist terrorist attacks such as those as recent as today’s attack on the British Consulate in Istanbul and the attack at the weekend on two Jewish synagogues in the same town.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, having reached this stage of the debate and taking into account what has already been said, I shall simply begin by saying that this Brussels Council was a Council that gave us no surprises, good or bad. Of course, it ratified the list of the ten new future members of the European Union, which is wonderful! Could it really have done anything else, however, without sparking a crisis, or even a disaster? At the same time, though, the Council has not really provided itself with the financial resources needed to perform this enlargement successfully. The Europe of Fifteen will therefore welcome ten new members, on the condition that they are docile and that they agree to do what the 15 Member States often do not do themselves. And I say this because it is my view, even though I remarked upon Commissioner Verheugen’s spirit of openness. What is certainly more serious is that this enlargement could have been or could be a way of enriching the Union with even greater diversity provided by these ten new countries and by taking greater account, in parallel, of the diversities of the current 15 States. We could have encouraged greater pluralism. We instead used the steamroller technique and continued to disregard genuine social needs, public services and citizenship in every meaning of the word. The only things that count, in the long run, are the market and free competition. In 2004, therefore, barring a disaster, there will be 25 EU members. But if we do not redress the balance now, we will then only have one great liberal market subject to two restrictions, namely US policy restrictions, on the one hand, and global economic and financial restrictions on the other. So, instead of a democratic Europe of the citizens, which was the dream of the founding fathers of this Europe, we shall have a sort of Meccano house that is likely to collapse as soon as it encounters the first major crisis.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I agree absolutely with what David Martin had to say, and it would be a disgrace if we do not vote today. But, at this stage, I do not wish to discuss content, I would just like to ensure, and you shall have to take responsibility for that too, that the matter is pursued. For we are now faced with a difficult crisis regarding the Rules of Procedure, since the matter is to be referred back to Committee again, even though the majority in this House rejected that option today. I therefore request that it is ensured that this resistance from a particular quarter, creating the present situation in which Members of Parliament alone are not monitored by OLAF, does not become a permanent state of affairs. For that is precisely what you have achieved! Please deal with this matter, Mr President, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, so that we can settle it in a decent and dignified manner on behalf of the Members of this House. Otherwise, we will no longer be able to look our fellow citizens in the eye.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is an important directive. It is important firstly because – as the rapporteur said – it is one of these completely successful cases of taking advantage of the opportunities made possible by the former Article 138B of the Treaty of Maastricht, in other words, this Parliament is launching an initiative that will be taken up by the Commission and followed up by the Council. The rapporteur said that this is also an example of good cooperation between the three institutions. However, I would like to highlight the hard work, which has been notable and entirely praiseworthy, almost Herculean, of the rapporteur, Mr Rothley, throughout the process, from the conception of the basic idea to the follow-up, full of passion and rigour, of the legislative work that has been carried out. This is also an important directive, however, because now, when we are so concerned about the indifference of European citizens – who do not turn out to vote, who feel that Europe is very distant from them and who do not know whether Brussels is anything more than a place which produces what they perceive to be obligations – this is a good example of what our citizens really feel and understand to be the case. This is something that they will notice in their daily lives because any of them may have a car, and any of them, even if they do not travel abroad much, will have the idea that “well, if I do go abroad at least I will be covered”. It offers some security. It is important for another reason. Mr President, I would like to say most emphatically on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, that the large majority of us support the rapporteur, Mr Rothley, on the only point of real controversy which, as he has made very clear, is its field of application. There is a, shall we say, technical problem in the way it will apply but we will have to resolve these issues from a technical point of view. We utterly refuse to change the philosophy of it. This Parliament has shown itself to be clearly opposed to moving from the idea of a binding law to the idea of a voluntary pact between people who are insured with a voluntary subscription on their part. From that starting point, we can discuss the matter. If it is true – and it is true, and I was the first to recognise this as I was quite opposed to this idea, defended from the outset by Mr Rothley -, that some technical modifications will need to be made, then so be it. Let us not forget though that these modifications are to some extent an unnecessary clarification – and Mr Rothley is right in this – because in no case can a directive affect private international law or the rules of procedure. If these clarifications need to be made, we will make them. If an item needs to be revised, it shall be revised. If we need to make a modification, we shall do so. However, Mr President, in any event, the Group of the European People’s Party maintains that we will not change our philosophy. We are not prepared to replace this philosophy of binding law with another one that is completely uncertain and not very favourable to the European citizen, to a voluntary subscription scheme.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will develop a few ideas regarding the sector that is most dear to me – agriculture – because, whilst I support the policy to guarantee the greatest benefits of the expansion of world trade to developing countries, I would like to stress that the European Union has already granted these and so many trade preferences to become the main market for the export of agricultural products. I would like to again consider the further concessions and the proposal for duty-free access, because this does not, in my view, constitute the most effective means to help farmers in these countries, whilst it would permanently jeopardise many strategic European products. As a negotiating tactic, I would strengthen the argument in defence of the Community system, to guarantee stability mechanisms on the world market, knowing that stability of world prices is beneficial to all members of the World Trade Organisation. In order to do this, and not cause a structural crisis in the agriculture sector, I am adamant that the results of the WTO negotiations should not go further than the decisions taken in Berlin in the context of Agenda 2000 and supporting prices and markets should remain a fundamental element in the common agricultural policy. Following changes to the United States support system that were, in my view, very intelligent, we need to review our internal support to examine to what extent the GATT agreement is being respected and to assess the effect of aid on market prices and the competitive positions of commodities. Finally, it is important that the issue of the great challenges posed by enlargement for the European Union is raised during the WTO talks. This is a process of worldwide significance that must, in my view, be recognised at the negotiation table.

Political group: PPE-DE
Concerning the Summit which closed the Council's term under the auspices of the German Presidency, I would like to insist from the very outset on the very good work achieved by this Presidency within a perilous international context and in a period of ‘doubt’ in European opinion. There was no lack of seriousness and toughness. Who could think otherwise? Concerning the actual decisions taken, although I welcome the efforts devoted to employment and the decision on a ‘European Employment Pact’, I must state my unhappiness about the gains which were made and the concrete proposals put forward. I hope, therefore, that it represents a starting point (and not the point of arrival!).The overwhelming majority of the Right in Parliament, incidentally, will not make things any easier. The European will therefore have a fight on its hands to help the Council to implement its promises, and if possible, to go even further. Unemployment is still ‘an absolute evil’ in today's Europe, destroying our society. We will see then, how this matter is followed up under the Finnish Presidency.

Political group: PSE