GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The way in which the IGC is developing is increasingly worrying because there it shows a clear trend towards maintaining key aspects approved by the Convention but which we dispute. These include enshrining and deepening the economic and social model of neoliberal capitalism, extending the militarisation of the European Union and institutionally consecrating the Union as a political and military bloc and also promoting the federalist institutional approach. Indicative of this trend is the compromise reached between France, Germany and the United Kingdom, under the auspices of the USA, on the militarisation of the European Union, cementing its institutional bases as a more or less autonomous pillar of NATO. Although some differences remain on institutional issues, compromises are being reached on the idea of a cabinet, with blackmail over Community funds increasingly forcing the small and medium-sized countries to accept a submissive position. This leaves the fight being maintained by Spain and Poland, who are seeking to have the same weighting in the decision-making process as the other ‘large countries’. The ‘primacy’ of the so-called ‘European constitution’ and of Community law over the laws and Constitutions of each country is also reiterated, which is equally unacceptable. It will fall to the peoples of the EU Member States and to the progressive forces within those States to combat this draft, which has been designed to benefit Europe’s economic and financial groups and the ambitions of the elites that, in each country, unashamedly serve these interests.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as some speakers have already indicated – and I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Moreira Da Silva, on his report – in a tragic coincidence with this debate, nature has decided to remind us of the consequences of climate change. In the north of Italy and also in my own area – the Mediterranean coast of Spain – the forces of nature have once again unleashed themselves, leading to loss of life and the loss of possessions, in homes, factories and so forth. On our coast, on the Spanish Mediterranean coast, this is the product of a phenomenon known as la gota fría (cold front), caused by the warming of the waters of the Mediterranean, which generates an increase in water vapour which, upon contact with the cold layers of the stratosphere, produces this heavy rainfall. It is true that this normally takes place in autumn, but it is also true that this used to take place every 15 to 20 years, while it currently happens almost every year, with tragic consequences at least every three or four years. Is this or is it not the result of the greenhouse effect and climate change? Although the experts cannot guarantee it with all the scientific evidence, I believe this to be the case. We must therefore remedy this situation. It is true that with the measures contained in the Kyoto Protocol, to which the report we are debating today refers, we will not achieve short-term results, but it is also true that the human race should try to solve the problems it creates. Other causes – also triggered by human greed – combine with the greenhouse effect, such as building on watercourses, which heightens the damaging effects of these natural disasters. I am therefore one of the signatories to a motion for a resolution suggesting not only the rapid application of the measures contained in the Kyoto Protocol to combat climate change, but also other types of preventative measures, for example continuing and intensifying efforts to prevent the effects of rain when creating infrastructures, and finally, aid to all the victims, given that they are not responsible for the short or long-term damage caused by human greed and speculation.

Political group: PSE
I would just like to tell the Commissioner that I was not referring to a masters degree in nutrition. I was referring to the chair for specialist nurses in diabetes, for which there is an application before the Commission. I just want to clarify that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, with regard to the first paragraph we shall be voting on, if I have understood correctly, a compromise with its authors is possible is the sense that Amendment No 1 can be withdrawn once a split vote has been held on the first paragraph. Paragraph b) would include the entire first part up to ‘Plan Colombia’ and, in the second paragraph, the remainder of the text. We can avoid the vote on Amendment No 1 by holding a split vote on the original text of paragraph b).

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, perhaps something was lost in translation. My question was: are there any plans to use external professional support or recruitment advisors so as to ensure that the best possible staff are recruited?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin straight away by saying that, in principle, I welcome the Commission's proposal to set up a compensation fund, even from the point of view of Austrian agriculture. This fund may be just the instrument to reduce pigfarmers' losses in times of crisis. The pig crises in 1998 and 1999 demonstrate the inadequacy of instruments such as private stocking and the export refunds of the common organisation of the market in pigmeat at the time. I think that, if we are to avoid and manage such crises in the future, this proposal is the first way forward. A fundamental point which the Commission has overlooked in its proposal is joint financing. In my view, the basic principle of EU financing should apply to common organisations of the market, including the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. It guarantees intensive participation on the part of farmers, thereby indirectly restricting production. The proposal makes provision for the fund to be set up by the Member States. We must, I think, ensure that all Member States set up the fund, so that farmers throughout Europe have an equal chance to participate in it. As far as the management of the fund is concerned, state administration should be kept to a minimum; in other words, the Member States should approve and monitor the fund but should not administer it; that should be left to the producer groups. Every farmer should be free to participate in the compensation fund., but if they decide to participate, they must sign up for five years. I am positive that this instrument will improve the stability of the market and allow farmers in Europe to manage cyclical crises more efficiently.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am taking the floor to express my opinion, drawn from my experience of municipal administration, that the URBAN projects should, or rather must, have a threefold purpose: firstly, to promote the restoration of infrastructure and historic, old and perhaps dilapidated areas of cities. Secondly, to promote and stimulate economic activity and social life within these historic centres, within these old quarters of our cities. There is little point in having streets which are now wonderfully lit, with new pavements, with newly paved road surfaces, all whitewashed and beautiful, if we are not able to fill them with activity and, therefore, employment. I would like to make it clear that it is not just a question of finance or aid to the different social operators, but rather also of selecting those projects which are aimed at employment, or to put it another way, projects which will tend to favour the creation and promotion of jobs. Thirdly – and perhaps this should be the first objective – the projects should principally be aimed at the complete rehabilitation of people and families, because man is not made for the law, but rather law is made for man. These areas of our cities are often home to single-parent families, elderly people who receive a pension and no longer carry out productive activity, and families facing difficulties; sometimes they are families which have broken down and which are excluded from mainstream society. These people live in areas which should benefit from these projects. If we have success in this threefold sense, I believe that these families, these people, these European citizens, will believe more in Europe, and this seems to me to be very important because, ultimately, the cities will increasingly come to play a leading role in European life.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I begin by endorsing the plaudits that have been offered to Mrs Haug. She has indeed worked quite hard although, in the case of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I am afraid she was working so hard that she was not able to pay anything more than a goodwill visit to our committee. Therefore we have prepared the opinion which is before Parliament. I will briefly touch on some of the points that arise from it. Firstly, I want to support the points that are made by Mrs Haug concerning the implications of spending in the Balkans. It is a matter that has been of significant concern to the Industry Committee. We are particularly concerned about the implications for a wide range of the programmes that fall within our remit. It certainly is the case that, with the move to activity-based budgeting, we are moving away from the concept that everything that was previously in the budget has to be preserved for the future. Nonetheless a great deal of the programmes that are within our remit would be significantly affected by the spending proposals for the Balkans, unless Mrs Haug is successful. So on behalf of the Industry Committee I should like to voice our support for her in that regard. In two particular areas we are affected by multiannual programmes. I want to reiterate our commitment in the research area. I recognise that this is not a matter that is affected by the budget on this occasion, but we should not ignore the changes we are seeing in the energy sphere with Save and Altener. The figures that we see are seeing for Save, where there is a significant reduction in the budget for energy efficiency schemes, are a result of the budgetary process last year. That is only just now coming through. The final point I want to make in the trade sphere relates to the need for us to ensure that the omnibus regulation for the transatlantic dialogue is adapted. I hope the Commissioner will take that on board.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have before us a great own-initiative report which is so important that, in my opinion, it could easily have been called ‘Bases for a common cultural policy’, because this is what they could be if the Council takes a sensitive approach to our requests. Our cultural identity is being protected all the time and this is right and proper because it is an important part of Europe’s cultural heritage. The rapporteur himself, in a cogent phrase, defined the situation in Europe as the unity of diversities. But do the Members of the Council not think that it is also time that we discussed what is common to all our cultures, to seek it out, to cherish its common components, ways of life, customs, shared values, knowledge, art and scientific development? Do they not think that it is time to state that a European culture does indeed exist, to develop joint cultural policies and to set common objectives for all our member States? In a globalised world and given the danger of passively adopting one particular dominant culture, cultural convergence within the European Union represents a powerful political bulwark that we should not reject. To those nationalists who, from within or from outside the Union, reject the future of the European Union because, according to them, we do not share a common identity, we must reply with the words of Levy Strauss, who said: “We do not need one, because we have something much stronger: a common destiny”. The purpose of my words, Mr President, is to congratulate Mr Ruffolo for having reminded us so brilliantly of the path that we must take in the field of culture. One final comment. The request that a work of art be installed in infrastructures and installations financed with Community funds seeks not only to protect and to spread art in Europe, but to ensure that the public knows and remembers that this airport, that motorway, or such-and-such railway line, comes from the Community, a fact of which today, unfortunately, people tend to be unaware.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is no doubt that liberalisation of the transport market has delivered positive benefits for the mobility of goods and people, but this is in the context of a continuing predominance of road traffic, growing congestion and harmful effects on the environment and public health. The White Paper proposes to tackle this situation by gradually breaking the link between transport growth and economic growth or an increase in GDP, while recognising that economic growth will generate greater needs for mobility. Conversely, we cannot ignore the importance of transport in contributing to economic growth and development. The Irish situation is an excellent case study in point. Road traffic in Dublin has grown exponentially in the last decade, as we have experienced record growth levels in our economy. But the resulting congestion now acts as a serious brake on further growth. Here, we are talking about balance and the need to get it right. We also have the environmental impact on our air quality. Similarly, enlargement will also generate additional road transport. Infrastructure upgrading in candidate countries will require massive investment. As they grow their GDP and their per capita income - which we all hope they do - so traffic and congestion will increase pro rata. The action proposed by the White Paper involves rebalancing the different modes of transport; developing high quality rail services; promoting short sea crossings; inland waterways and combined transport; and promoting fair competition between the sectors. New TENs projects are needed to address existing and future bottlenecks, along with a sufficient infrastructure charging policy. In aviation, I fully support the SKY initiative. I do not feel that harmonisation of fuel taxes has an essential part to play. Road transport will continue to be the dominant mode of transport for Member States for which alternative modes are not possible and not realistic. Even where they are, what will it take to get us out of our cars? In conclusion, while road safety is a major issue and death and injury on our roads are at frightening levels – 40 000 per annum in the EU – like many colleagues I balk at yet another European agency and feel that national authorities should be able to plan strategies suitable to their particular set of circumstances.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wonder if Commissioner Patten can explain to me how the Commission is going to help repair a submarine, which is what we really just voted on.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, today is a great day, and proof of this is the fact that we have 25 flags accompanying the common European flag. You know that I am one of those who would like to see just one flag in this House, but today I believe that the presence of all of them is justified. The budget is not usually an emotive subject. But I must acknowledge that, particularly perhaps for those of us who have spent more than half our lives under a dictatorship, reaching an agreement today to fund the democratic reunification of Europe is a sensitive and emotional issue. I must say that everything was going well, apart from what I would consider a mistake on the part of the Council, which tarnished the end of the process and created unnecessary difficulties; the introduction of Annex XV, which had no precedents in previous enlargements. And the annex affected the basic competences of Parliament. There were two equally valid alternatives: to consider the presence of Annex XV as an implicit violation of the interinstitutional agreement and act accordingly, pursuant to Article 172 – and this will explain the final vote of certain Members – or to negotiate with the Council. This is the option Parliament chose, there were tough negotiations, in which we must acknowledge in particular the skill of the chairman of our Committee on Budgets, Mr Wynn, and as a result of which we have reached an entirely acceptable compromise which I will recommend to the House. We have achieved the objectives set for us and I believe that in some cases we have gone further than adjusting the financial perspectives for the purposes of enlargement. As rapporteur for many years in this field I would like to stress that this is the first review of the financial perspectives achieved in more than a decade. We will therefore have a Heading 3 for internal policies, which can operate in the coming years, which is sufficient if not comfortable. There will be no discrimination between old and new Member States. We have achieved a declaration from the representatives of the Member States, those who sign the Treaty. A declaration of an interpretative nature, which preserves the democratic rights of Parliament and of our future colleagues from the new Member States. Furthermore, we have achieved a new situation for Turkey, in heading 7, which has a dual significance: it contains a political message for that country and it allows us room for manoeuvre within heading 4 on foreign policy. Therefore, although, to be frank, I would have preferred to remove Annex XV, I am in a position to recommend to the House that you approve this agreement and I believe it will allow the Union and Parliament to move forward in the right direction.

Political group: PSE
Mr President. I should like to table an oral amendment with regard to recital C on my behalf and on behalf of the Members with whom we negotiated this joint motion. The German version says “in acknowledgement of”. We move that this be amended to “in the knowledge of”. That is the only oral amendment which I wish to table.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I entreat all of you: let us stop talking about the follow-up to Nice and talk instead about the future. Let us look towards the future. I would also like to correct an oversight this morning. Before we look to the future let us wind up the past. Let us invite the Member States to ratify Nice as soon as possible. This is essential if we want to clear the air for the debate. As I look towards the future I am convinced about one thing. The leap forward we are expecting will come from public opinion, from the debate, but first and foremost from young people. It is to them that the Europe of the future belongs. It is not enough, however, to say: the debate, the debate, the debate. You are right, Commissioner: we must organise it and structure it. To guide this debate, I think that at some point we must ask ourselves about the usefulness of a questionnaire. By the same token, we must use all the available forums for this debate, while being aware that none of them, be it national conferences, consultations with unions, forums of civil societies, will have the power to arrive at a conclusion. For, pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty, the conclusion belongs to the Heads of State and Government. Let us take note of this. Between these two stages, though, what will revive hope within Europe is nevertheless the adventure of the convention, which is no longer that adventurous. The experience of the Charter demonstrated this. I believe it was Mr Poettering who asked a question about a parallel process between the public debate and the convention. It seems to us that the correct formula is that of a broad, open debate, which will take place as soon as possible. When the convention starts its work, the debate will continue in parallel in order to draw the necessary lessons from the experience of the convention. And then this Parliament will agree to consult all the wise men on earth and to participate in all the forums. In the final analysis, however, it is the representatives of democracy who will have to participate in this convention. One last word, Mr President. The Council was courageous enough to invent the convention. We ask it to show the same courage and look to the future with confidence. Our citizens expect this. Our fellow Member, Claude Desama, has invited us to take part in constructing a new federalism and we should accept this invitation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Council has partially aligned with the position of the European Parliament on the question of the exemption of operators from environmental liability which, in the Commission's initial text, was so broad as to cancel out the implementation of the 'polluter pays' principle to all intents and purposes. At the same time, however, in order to mitigate the onerous consequences for companies which are not to blame, Parliament accepted that the licence or failure to diagnose the harmful consequences of the activity at issue in time could operate as mitigating circumstances when charging the operator for the cost of restoring ecological damage. This moderate position on the part of the European Parliament is now in danger of being cancelled at second reading, in that there are amendments which, if accepted, will result in complete exemption. The licence and knowledge must be taken into account solely as mitigating circumstances. Similarly, on the question of insurance, the cost must not be passed on to the taxpayer. We insist on the need to lay down the implementation stages of the directive, at reasonable intervals, and to define the types of activities and damage covered in the text of the directive as of now. To conclude, I should point out that the contradictory positions of the cancel out protection and it is worth questioning how it is that, while they are calling here for collective responsibility, they advocate personal responsibility everywhere else.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, two peoples and two cultures living in one country is often a delicate matter. Reason is required, but feelings also come into play. The Annan Plan is a good plan, but it is a solution born of reason. Yet Cypriots choose not only with their minds, but also with their hearts. Thirty years of occupation is a long time. I heard a Turkish Cypriot girl being interviewed on the radio. She said that, in her youth, she thought that only men lived on the other side. We are asking Cypriots to say ‘yes’ to the Annan Plan, as we are confident that it will bring them peace, reconciliation and prospects. However, does the population have sufficient trust in the countries that are to ensure the implementation of that plan, for example? Have Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom not had their own agendas all along in the history of Cyprus? Has sufficient work been done on trust between human beings in those thirty years? We are calling for Cypriots to vote ‘yes’, but let us remember, with a view to the accession of some Balkan states, that it is important to win the trust of the population. I have just heard Mr Verheugen saying that it is we who are organising the accession of Cyprus to the EU, but Greece that must enable unity in that country. I find that rather shocking: where is the people of Cyprus in all of this? Well, that people will have its say. We are calling on it to say ‘yes’, but equally, if it does not yet have sufficient trust to do so, we must further build this trust and ensure that the unification process is a success, and that what is not possible today is possible tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE