GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, tomorrow this Parliament will approve the resolution on the Commission’s Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy, which draws up its future. I would like the motto ‘more Europe’, chosen by the Spanish Presidency, to be converted this year into the definitive integration of fishing into the single market, and I would like a CFP to be more participatory, a CFP whose definition and application involve the presence not only of central governments but also of the regions, of regions with competences in the field of fishing, and of course economic and social actors. Fishing, Mr President, works on an international basis, like the whole of the economy. Its reform cannot ignore this reality. Nevertheless, it worries us to see that the Community fleet’s access to external waters is being restricted and that our fleet is losing fishing grounds rather than gaining them. In six months’ time we will be able to judge this Presidency by its results and see whether it has been able to reverse this trend. Given the importance of this economic activity to numerous European regions, most of them peripheral and Objective 1, and its role as an element of economic integration and social cohesion, we want you to take it into account as a priority objective when it comes to strategies for safeguarding the European social model, which you mentioned in your speech. I would like you to make that explicit commitment here, thereby helping this sector to recover its fighting spirit and confidence.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we must maintain the integrity of the Rome Statute and be instrumental in getting the International Criminal Court up and running as soon as possible. That is why it is unacceptable for the American Government to undermine the Court by trying to enter into bilateral agreements with EU countries or candidate countries. I am pleased that the Danish Presidency has worked hard to maintain a common EU position, and I am sorry that no such position has come about. The Council has to a large extent given in to American pressure, and I want, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, to call upon the national parliaments in the EU and in the candidate countries to keep a close eye on what their governments are doing so that the Rome Statute is not weakened. As is well known, the United States signed the statute, but has withdrawn its signature. I hope that the Council will embark upon a new dialogue with the American Government concerning the recognition of the International Criminal Court, which all the Member States and most of the candidate countries have now ratified. The EU and the United States share the same basic values. Both parties profess freedom and democracy and the defence of human rights and the principles of the rule of law. That is why the United States, which will be able to contribute in a particularly positive way to the Court and to the way it operates, should be among the signatories of the Rome Statute. Since 1998, the EU has tried to accommodate American anxieties in relation to certain provisions of the Statute, but its efforts have unfortunately been in vain. It is unfortunate, moreover, that the United States does not now intend to be a party to the statute which, as I say, it in fact signed during the Clinton administration. The United States’ decision is wrong, and we must all regret the American measures. We must therefore hope that the United States can be convinced to adopt a more positive line once the Criminal Court has in practice had the opportunity to show that it operates in accordance with the highest standards of the rule of law and does not allow itself to be misused for political purposes.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, we are, in fact, in a situation in which we are building up a European railway system, albeit somewhat late. Mr Jarzembowski and I hold such similar views that I should like to begin where he left off. In a few weeks’ time, we shall propose to Parliament at second reading and by a large majority – there are still a few differences of opinion here and there – what framework market conditions and operating regulations are needed in order to create a European railway system. All this, as the previous speaker has already said, will not produce a European railway system unless there is also a degree of interoperability on the technical and social side. It is grotesque: every private company, even small private companies, think European nowadays. It is only on the railways that we have not managed to achieve this and we are now endeavouring to bring about a European attitude. The comment about industry is correct. We always look spellbound at America, at the United States, where industry and, of course, the free market economy are also promoted by the state. Except that, when it comes to American companies, the situation is quite different. In Europe, uniting in a common European market is proving to be an arduous task. How can we expect European products to be used throughout the world, when we are cannot even agree on certain technical conditions and interoperability in Europe? In this sense I should like to offer the rapporteur, Mr Savary, my full and unequivocal support and congratulate him on his excellent report. What we need is technical interoperability. That has already been said. Industry has its part to play here, but of course clients, i.e. the European construction companies, must also do what they can to force industry to cooperate. This also applies, and here I disagree with a number of previous speakers, to social comparability and alignment. Of course, that does not mean that everything will become identical, because we do not want a situation with one side more or less exploiting the other; we want a situation in which we look together to see how we can bring about a European railway system. Safety is also, without doubt, an issue. The huge advantage of the railway is that it is safe and environmentally-friendly. Just as it is a pity that the transport Commissioner cannot be here, it is a good sign that the Commissioner for the environment is here, because, in the final analysis, traffic, and railway traffic in particular, is a means to an end and not an end in itself and it should help to improve our environmental situation. Mr Savary has also highlighted a very important point; namely that we must ensure during the enlargement of the European Union that the European railway system does not stop at the current borders of the European Union but covers the whole of Europe so that it can help to improve the environment and increase traffic safety throughout Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to make four points in connection with this report. Firstly, I feel that the fact that this report has been produced is a very positive thing. I also thank the rapporteur for her efforts. Secondly, I take the view that Mrs Bonino's reflections are something we should all share. What is lacking in the report is precisely the principal cause underlying the facts of this situation, which was analysed in the report, in part unsparingly; the cause of it, though, is not there. Thirdly, it appears to me that we are, from the point of view of consistency, far too amicable, far too calm, far too balanced. Appeals are made, recommendations are made, requests are made, things are emphasised, but, in my view, far too little is demanded. I believe we must in future exert much more pressure on this issue. We must exert massive pressure on these countries and the societies in them, even with the suggestion of sanctions – and I do know that the word is not quite the right one. That means that we must convince them and give them to understand, that the failure to positively influence the placing of women on an equal footing in these countries will have consequences. Fourthly – and here I pick up on one of the Liberal Mrs Dybkjær's ideas – this is very much an issue for men too. I am a bit of a black swan here today, but I hope that those men who are not here today will, when the vote is taken, do the right thing and advance the policy of this report a few steps further – and I hope that they will also do so in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, conciliation has led to a number of adjustments being made to the report which can be deemed positive, such as the reduction in the permitted tar content and the setting of ceilings for nicotine and carbon monoxide content levels. However, it is to be deplored that this Directive has no legal basis. In addition, attention should be drawn to the contradiction that, while restraints are being imposed on the sale of a lawfully permitted product, tobacco growing is still being heavily subsidised. The objective of this Directive, namely to protect human health, cannot be achieved by taking excessively protective measures, the effect of which on the consumer has not been proven in any way. As a body that is responsible for policy, we should not content ourselves with simply papering over the cracks.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, one of the most important goals of the European Union’s Mediterranean policy is to make a positive contribution to the peace process between Israel and the Arab states, and in particular between Israel and the authorities of the Palestinian autonomous area, and to give this process our energetic support, wherever possible. In economic terms, this means that according to the existing agreement, Europe’s markets are open to products from Israel and from the Palestinians’ autonomous area. Furthermore, exports from the territory of the State of Israel and the current Palestinian territories to the European Union receive preferential treatment from the European Union. Provision has not yet been made in the strictly legal sense for preferential arrangements of this kind to be enjoyed by occupied areas which have yet to be assigned definitively to the national territory of one country or the other, under the terms of the peace process and a new border settlement, and these arrangements have yet to be specified in detail. We agree with the Commission on this. Therefore, it would make good sense now for Israel to guarantee the legally irreproachable application of this concrete preferential arrangement on its national territory, and for the Palestinians to do the same in respect of their interim territory. However, we are also in favour of allowing the direct representatives of these occupied territories enough time to reach a negotiated settlement, which is something you mentioned Commissioner. Ultimately, all producers, be they Israeli or Palestinian, should be afforded easier access to the European Union market once the territorial issues have been conclusively resolved, which will come step-by-step with the construction of a future Palestinian state. Therefore, the European Union should help to move the process on, and not behave in such a way as to exacerbate the situation, i.e. by apportioning blame to one party, which achieves nothing. And so, on behalf of the vast majority of the Group, I urge Israel, the Palestinians – and President Arafat’s stance is an encouraging sign in this respect – and the Commission, to step up the direct exploratory talks, so as to settle this as yet unresolved trade issue between the European Union, on the one hand, and Israel and the Palestinian autonomous authorities, on the other. Therefore, with your permission, I would like to encourage the Commission – Mr Vitorino and Mr Lamy – to continue to support the peace process by taking a discreet but cooperation-orientated line, supporting the legitimate interests of Palestinian producers – as Parliament has done for ten years now – and, at the same time, building on our close trade ties with Israel and its producers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, we are now starting a discussion process in which the situation is as follows: the Amsterdam leftovers, which we now refer to as the Nice shortcomings, must be resolved in the post-Nice process, and for that we need a clear-cut process. It is not enough to depict this year as a full-blown discussion forum involving the civil society, which Mr Swoboda rightly criticised in his analysis. The question which needs to be asked here is: what clearly defined method is there for involving the European Parliament and the national parliaments? And this then begs the question: will it or will it not be a convention and what role will the convention play in formulating the documents adopted post-Nice? The question is: will it just be a folkloristic declaration adopted in a convention and will the 15 again behave in exactly the same way on the night? I think we need to clarify where we are heading, as regards both the methods and the objectives. This should not be kept under wraps. For the rest, we need to consider, now that nearly all the Heads of Government have said that the decision-making structures decided at Nice are poor structures, what we can do to put things right, perhaps even before the post-Nice process starts – for example in connection with enlargement agreements, which always clarified this in the past. In any event, this is the way forward if we are to avoid delaying enlargement. Enlargement is the second major issue on the agenda and we must carry out our historic duty here. That brings me to the third point. We must ensure that transatlantic relations are not smothered by new security policy debates, with the Americans failing to understand us and our security and defence policy initiative, and with our failing to understand the Americans and their rocket defence system. The first thing we can say, I think, is that enlargement is our own major security policy achievement. Secondly, if we develop our own capabilities, they will form part of the Atlantic Alliance, which will continue to be responsible for collective security in Europe. I think that, thirdly, this will enable us to create the right conditions for a transatlantic market place. The American president's current negotiator, Robert Zoellick, wrote the 1990 transatlantic declaration. I hope that we can re-establish this tradition and reduce the Atlantic Ocean to a pond once again. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the lateness of the hour, I would particularly like to mention the ladies and gentlemen in the interpreters' booths. Our thanks are due to them. They are always there and help us in Europe to understand each other better, and to get on better with each other. We now have before us the question on parental responsibility that we have tabled. We as a legislature should not lecture people about how to run their lives, but we do need to help them find the right path through life. We need to make that right path possible. That is why the European Union has pledged itself to honour fundamental rights, both in the treaties and in the Charter. The Member States have now been co-existing very well for over 50 years. Peace has reigned between very different societies, but within families there is often conflict when love is shattered. Generally, it is the children who suffer. In such cases we then read in the newspapers about children being kidnapped by their own parents or being unable to develop properly because of the pressure they are under. We should not pretend that these things are not happening, and we have to recognise that what are apparently merely family arguments between a few individuals indicate problems with a European dimension. Ultimately, it is the rubbing points in cross-border judicial arrangements that grind down families and children. That is what we need to put a stop to. That is why our question to the Commission includes points that we have identified in conversation with the people affected. Our question includes proposals for solving the legal problems and facilitating judicial cooperation for the benefit of children. I do not want to read out the details again here, Commissioner. You have had a chance to read them and I would be pleased if you could agree with each of them. You would be doing a great many people a service if you were to do that and if you were to make it clear to even more of our citizens that Europe is more than a legally defined area of freedom, security and justice. Please take this opportunity to make it clear, together with the European Parliament, that Europe is an area in which people can feel secure outside their own borders, even if there has been conflict between partners. That is why – and our question relates to these three things – we need clear and comprehensive legislation, properly motivated lawyers who jointly implement legislation with a common understanding for people, and, last but not least, good common fundamental concepts. I hope that you can also satisfactorily answer this question for us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a few days ago, I think we all supported the international women’s days observed in our respective countries. What has emerged from those days is still quite a bitter taste: we are still victims of inequality and we are still being treated as a minority group, when we represent more than half of the human race. It is with a great deal of regret that I have to observe that this evening, the problem of women appears once again to interest only women, and I hope that tomorrow there will be more of us to stand up and fight against that, as some men fought today, complaining that some very important items, in particular pensions, were being dealt with only at the end of the evening. At European Union level, it has to be said that the principle of gender equality is not yet being applied. Mrs Lalumière’s report, which looks at the situation in our institution, says quite clearly that this is the case and makes specific proposals. It is true that we need to deal firmly with this problem and stop hiding behind socio-economic and socio-cultural considerations. We have said that we want to be a fairer and more equal society. Thank you, Mrs Gröner, for this excellent report, because, for the years to come it will provide an incomparable tool for developing the integrated and transversal approach in our policies, our actions and our budgets. Why? Quite simply because we feel that this integrated approach will lead to a fairer, more democratic society, and that taking into account the differences between men and women will enable us to take better advantage of human resources. We must take an active and effective approach, whether to structures, information policies, the evaluation of our actions, or the collection of statistics. Might I point out that, in less than a year, the Committee on Women’s Rights will be twenty years old? Twenty years is an important milestone, and I hope that we will be able to make a more than positive assessment of all the work that has been done.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union’s criticism of Ireland’s economic policy is controversial. As I see it, there are good reasons for supporting the Ecofin Council’s recommendation. The economic policy guidelines, on which all EU Member States have agreed, are concerned basically with ensuring that we do not once again slip into the galloping inflation and devastating budget deficit of the Eighties, which subsequently led to a backlash in the form of crisis and unemployment. Ireland is the first Member State which is now seriously beginning not to meet its inflation targets. Against the background of the crisis in the Nineties, it is therefore perhaps only reasonable for the EU to react. Now, things are beginning to go well for Europe again. No-one begrudges Ireland its fantastic growth. On the contrary, it is of course one of the foremost examples of EU cooperation’s really being able to help substantially improve conditions for an individual Member State. However, that is why we must not forget our experiences of the crisis during the Nineties. We must not compromise on our conviction that the fight for growth and full employment can, and must, be allied with a clear acceptance of responsibility when it comes to price stability and a balanced budget. Why, then, can Ireland not be allowed to go its own way? The problem is that we of course live in an interwoven, internationalised economy in which developments in one country influence developments in the others. As long as only one small country infringes the guidelines it has itself accepted, the problem may seem small. Now, however, there are worrying signs that more countries may be doing this, in which case it will be important to send out warning signals early on. In my own country, Sweden, an attempt is now being made to feature the criticism made of Ireland in anti-euro propaganda. Just look, they say. If we take part in EMU, we shall lose our economic independence. The EU will even obtain power over our taxes. I think that propaganda of that kind is nonsense. Ireland has been criticised not because it is to reduce taxes, but because the reduction is to take place in a situation in which this may contribute to overheating and to inflation’s taking off again. The EU has issued a recommendation. No forcible means are to be used to take over Ireland’s tax and budget policies, despite all that is maintained by Swedish opponents of the EU.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Pittella, for the fundamentally important work he has done with regard to this pressing issue. I was glad to see that the report takes a very similar line to that of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism with regard to the problem of outstanding commitments in respect of the Structural Funds. Many of the issues contained in our committee’s opinion have also been included in the report. The rapporteur has taken creditable account of factors that impact on the system, dealt with problematic issues critically, and proposes solutions with regard to the delays. In my opinion, the most important of these are the simplification and clarification of the system. Structural Funds payments have piled up to an alarming extent. The main procedure for controlling this trend in the current term is the n+2 rule. The rapporteur has found a sufficiently rigid and balanced approach to its application. The application of the n+2 rule is now facing its first real test, as payments requested by the end of the year are to be brought to the Commission’s attention and the overall amount will be seen. The Commission’s monitoring system and the way it reports to Parliament must be improved. One problem is the inadequate nature of Member State payment claim forecasts. In a system that is decentralised in the way it operates, Member States have an important responsibility for seeing to it that the system works as a whole. In regional policy it is time we switched from the debate on payments to one on the quality and effectiveness of measures. We will have the necessary ingredients for this when we have data based on the mid-term reviews. Above all, there must be a debate on quality and results by the Monitoring Committees at regional level. More reports and less bureaucracy serve as a guiding principle for better regional policy.

Political group: ELDR