GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am certainly not going to talk about the content, but I would nonetheless like to clarify two or three facts. On the one hand, I would like to say to Mrs Frassoni and Mrs Kaufmann that they must not misunderstand this report: Article 308, as referred to in this report, would result in decisions being made by codecision and qualified majority; we would therefore leave behind Council unanimity in favour of codecision, just as we have for own resources. It is untrue to say that we are proposing to exceed the powers of the European Parliament; we are – since Mrs Kaufmann referred to it – fully in line with the interpretation of the German Constitutional Court, which, following Mr Herzog’s report at the time of the Maastricht Treaty, pointed out that European parliamentary power was needed wherever competence was transferred from one area to another. Let us therefore have no unfounded accusations on this point: we are in favour of codecision. Similarly, I fully understand that there might be some hostility towards the proposal that ratification of the Constitution should not be by unanimous vote, even though that is not the main point of the report, and I would not, therefore, want us to focus on that. I fully understand that there might be hostility on principle, and I understand what Mr van den Berg said on the subject. I would not, however, want any unfounded accusations to be made. It is untrue to say (and I think Mr Marinho should review this point) that the proposal is in any way insulting or disdainful towards small States. The proposal would allow States that represent 2.4% of the Community population to veto the adoption or ratification of a Treaty that might thus be supported by States representing 97.6% of the Community population. So let us not have any unfounded accusations! If one is in favour of Member State sovereignty, I can understand that one would not want a treaty to be ratified by just some of the States. My proposal, however, does not discriminate in any way against small or medium-sized States. I would like to say a word about Mr Duff, who tabled Amendment No 14. I agree with the content of this amendment, since it states that we need to revise parts A and B of the future Constitution differently. I made a proposal to this effect but I did not receive the support of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and I therefore cannot endorse this amendment personally. However, I believe the argument put forward by Mr Duff is entirely accurate and, personally, I fully support his move, even if, as rapporteur, my hands are tied.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group has abstained in today's vote on the discharge for the Parliamentary budget. This was essentially for the following reasons: we share with the drafters of the reports and of the amendments the view that clarity, transparency and regularity must prevail or be created, specifically when the position and responsibility of the groups in Parliament are at issue. We do believe, though, that this cannot be done within the scope of a single discharge resolution, but that it calls for in-depth discussion and negotiations. The same is true of the legal status of the assistants and the protection afforded them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, personally I voted in favour of this resolution, because the essential thing is that the European Parliament should discuss the postal service and we should get away from the current ambiguous situation. If we dismantle the public service, this would be very serious, and we wish to know what are the Commission’s intentions. Saying that the client will receive a better service at a lower cost is patently inaccurate. People who live a long way from civilisation will clearly not receive a better service or else they will then have to pay a great deal and some of them will not be in a position to do so. Postal services do not provide simply a postal delivery service but also a social service. Occasionally for some people the postman is the only person they see all day. We can salute them, these postmen who, whatever the weather, sometimes walk for miles to be able to offer this service to everyone. Dismantling the postal service, the local communication service, would be a serious mistake and we would be unable to maintain the principle of the equality of all citizens. Profitability at all costs means going against fraternity and against social cohesion.

Political group: PSE
I was delighted to cast my vote in favour of the excellent report by Mr Poos. As a representative of Scotland and a member of the section of my Group, I particularly welcome paragraph 13 of the report, calling for the involvement of 'national parliaments and, in federal or highly regionalised States, the regional authorities including participation in the Council itself according to Article 203 of the EC Treaty.' For Scotland and similar countries this will only be a start, but it will be an important one. This Parliament is concerned about the democratic deficit. To remedy this, let us seek to secure a greater role for devolved parliaments in making European law. If parliamentarians at all levels in Europe are to be engaged effectively, there must be open and public legislative debate in the Council. We must highlight the need for publicity and openness in the Council, as stipulated in paragraph 26 of the report. The reforms urged in this report all go in the right direction.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Patten, of course, you are very well-qualified to comment on account of the time you spent in China, and you are well aware of how hard the Tibetans are trying to initiate a debate, something which has always been blocked hitherto. However, if your response was to be that we should turn to “Mr CFSP”, that is, to Mr Solana, then I fear that this would constitute a one-sided approach to an external policy matter. Your approach, which I am very much in favour of, since it is a coherent one, takes its inspiration from the issue of human rights; I wholeheartedly agree that we must embrace the cause of human rights. Imprisonment, torture, the mutilation of young women and so on and so forth, are definitely issues that we could discuss ad infinitum. If we cut down here and say that the Council now shares responsibility for this, then I fear that these human rights issues will not be given the attention they deserve. The possibility of stressing the importance of business and trade in the first place, but also making very sure that we include human rights in the equation, would be a step we should take in tandem with the European Commission, rather than saying that it is a matter for the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, I have had the opportunity in the last few days to speak both with the Russians, in the person of Mr Rishkov from the Duma, and with Mr Achmadov from the Chechens. The overall picture which emerges is incredibly complicated. The Russians want to successfully conclude this military intervention using full force, whatever it costs. They deny that there are civilian fatalities. They say that the Chechen refugees, more than 300,000, are not facing a difficult situation. More and more, Russian politicians are using the Chechen conflict as an instrument of electoral campaign; and with some success. 95% of the Russian population support the war in Chechnya. However, it is also true that Russia is claiming in principle that the entire Chechen population are terrorists and as a European Parliament we cannot and must not accept this. We therefore demand political dialogue and a political solution and commit ourselves to the means of pressure we have at our disposal, even the blocking of new TACIS projects or the refusal to provide food aid to Russia. Humanitarian aid yes, democratic projects yes, but nothing more! Even though we acknowledge that the debate and negotiations on Russian non-compliance with trade agreements and the steel agreement will then become extremely difficult for the European Union, terrorism cannot, and must not, be waged against an entire population using military might. In this regard, an entirely different discussion, indeed an entirely different issue comes to the fore: The European Parliament has always made it clear in all its resolutions that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation. I cannot quite understand therefore how an appointed Chechen Foreign Minister who, under international law, should not even exist, can hold an official discussion with the President of the European Parliament. (Applause) I consider this to be an extremely difficult decision. I agree that the groups should have access to information, and I was very grateful that I was able to speak on this matter with Mr Achmadov, but in the past there have not been official appointments of this type in this House. This is a very unusual occurrence.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to echo Mr Harbour's congratulations to Mr Belder. He really has worked not only very hard, but also in a very open, intelligent and approachable way. I think we are seeing the fruits of that method of working in this report. It has been a great privilege to be part of that. Indeed, access at its best is the great equaliser, the great force for democracy. That is why this report is so important: it is providing a mechanism in terms of active citizenship, which is becoming more and more important, for instance electronic democracy. We are moving towards electronic voting; methods of being engaged as an active citizen more and more depend on access. But the reason why I wanted to be shadow rapporteur on this report, and to support Mr Belder, was that, for disabled people, access to work depends more and more on access to the web. Mr Harbour is quite right that much of this does not depend on money, or at least not on huge sums of money, and Mr Belder has been absolutely correct to enter into wide consultation with disabled people themselves. They already are in a position over and over again to explain to us what is needed, what will work and what will help them. I want to draw attention particularly to paragraph 4 of the motion for a resolution, and I shall quote from it, because it says that disabled people not only should be able to read web pages, but also should be enabled to manage the content of web pages. In other words, they are not only passive receivers of information, but also serious contributors. That is absolutely important. My final point is that this is all part of the Lisbon agenda, making Europe e-friendly and e-workable, and it is going to mean that if this principle is carried through into other areas of work, disabled European Union citizens will be able to participate on much more equal terms in this respect than we have seen to date.

Political group: PSE
This discussion is the opportunity for us to express our solidarity with the Turkish and Kurdish workers and people. It is up to them to decide whether or not they join the European Union and if they decide to do so, it is not up to us to oppose their membership. However, that will not stop us continuing to condemn the repression of this regime, which was inherited from the military dictatorship in 1980 and which today threatens to execute Öçalan and refuses to allow the Kurdish people self-determination. Before they start preaching about democracy, European governments should set an example and begin by granting voting rights to three million Turkish and Kurdish immigrant workers who live in EU countries. This is the same EU, which exploits Turkey via the Customs Union without financial compensation. The aid must benefit the destitute populations in Turkey. In order to achieve this, the priority must not be economic or customs relations, but relations between the ordinary people and organisations in Turkey and those of other European countries. It is for these reasons that I shall abstain on the report on economic and social development and I shall vote against the report on EC/Turkey Customs Union. - Breyer report (A5-0065/1999)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Taoiseach says that he believes that the principle of the dual-majority system is now accepted. But it seems to me that it is not yet accepted in practice because one sees the various ministers trying to supplement the dual-majority formula with further qualifying clauses which would permit a specified number of Member States to form a blocking minority. My strong advice to the presidency would be to reject such superfluous complications. It would be far better to achieve a simple formula, say 55/55, which dispenses with the need for a third key. Europe cannot be built upon mathematical equations, but on political trust.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I have an even bigger audience than Mr Fatuzzo so let me be positive and say that, after the introspection of the Court of Auditors debate and the criticism that we heard, it is really refreshing to have a debate on something with so little criticism, something which is so positive for EU citizens. I want to stress what the Commissioner said: this is a tangible benefit making free movement a reality for ordinary EU citizens. While congratulating the rapporteur, I should also like to ask – if this card is to become a reality – that the Commission and all MEPs stress to Member State governments that they must not see this merely as a technical step forward. Advertising is needed, and, as Mr Crowley said, proper training for doctors so that they accept the health card and ensure that this is seen as the success story that it so obviously is. There are very few criticisms here. Let us go out and publicise the fact that the health card is a benefit that makes free movement, as set out in the Treaties, something of a reality.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to highlight the areas of the work programme which affect directly the work of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. With regard to regional policy, my group would like to see the Commission ensure the full application of the partnership principle at all levels of programming of the Structural Funds. We, along with other groups in this Parliament, are still waiting for the Commission to present a proposal laying down the practical arrangements for the implementation of the code of conduct that would facilitate cooperation and proper scrutiny. When, Mr President, will the Commission go further on spatial planning and submit new proposals to develop the decision taken at the informal Council meetings, notably at Potsdam and Tampere? Regarding transport and tourism, I and my group welcome the proposals reinforcing transport safety although we need more concrete proposals on road safety and in particular, the issue of blood-alcohol levels and speed limits. I also welcome the ongoing commitment to the Galileo project and the review of the TENs strategy, especially with its highlight on the railway sector, a sector which we believe to be very important indeed. However, I have to say to you that my group deplores the fact that several dossiers at this moment are blocked in Council. We also want progress on both the working time directive and the slot allocation at airport directive, as well as measures to end the misery in air traffic control delays in Europe at this moment. We are also concerned, President Prodi, at the lack of proposals concerning the tourism sector, a sector in which so many of our citizens work. I regret that transport issues do not appear to have been taken seriously into account in the enlargement chapter and would encourage the Commission to present proposals to ensure better coordination between structural actions and instruments and the PHARE and TACIS programmes. I also want to insist that Parliament’s views and wishes on postal services, often stated in this chamber, are taken fully into account in any new proposals. Whilst I am grateful to Mr Prodi for outlining the Commission’s work programme this morning, I have to say that in the areas of regional policy, transport and tourism, the programme is more notable for what is missing than for what is in it, and I would hope that over the next year we could put those matters right.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, civilisation is no longer present in the Middle East. I wish to echo Mr Patten’s words: Israel is going far beyond the boundaries of what is legitimate in combating terrorism, and the Palestinians are not doing anything like enough to prevent the terrible suicide bombers. We must bring civilisation back to the area. We must have the rule of law and not the rule of power, with the former replacing the latter. That is the principle upon which EU cooperation is based, and something could be learned from this in the Middle East. The first step must be to give the UN group the opportunity to investigate the atrocities that have taken place there. It is shocking that Israel’s leaders have denied the three high-ranking people access to the area. We are talking here about a former Finnish president, the former president of the International Red Cross and the former High Commissioner for Refugees. Israel must not be given special treatment. It must accept that everyone should be treated equally and that there should be equality under the law. According to the Speaker of the Knesset, with whom I had the opportunity to speak yesterday, 65% of Israel’s population support Sharon but, at the same time, 80% support the Saudi Arabian peace proposal. That is paradoxical, in my view. We see peace agreements between Egypt and Israel and between Jordan and Israel. There is, then, the possibility of peace in the area and, here in Europe, we must therefore preserve optimism and hope. What can we do? I believe that, as we called for in our resolution, we must have human rights representatives present to see to it that human rights are respected by both parties. Again, it is a question of ensuring that the rule of law replaces the rule of power. Human rights organisations must be there to monitor the situation. At the same time, we must have an international peace-keeping force put in place in the Palestinian region. It is immaterial whether it be the UN, NATO, the EU or the United States, but it must be there to create peace. A guarantee must be given to the international community and, at the same time, Israel must not see this as a hostile act. There is a need for a new peace conference, but there is also a need for new people to take part in this. As a very highly regarded Jew in Denmark said to me: ‘There are two idiots in the region at the moment. One is Sharon, and the other is Arafat’. The rule of law must return to the area. That is the message from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. It must be possible for those of us in Europe who are friends of Israel to criticise the Israeli Government, and it must be possible for citizens of Denmark, which is a true and genuine friend of Israel, to criticise without being attacked for being anti-Semitic. Finally, I wish to assure Commissioner Patten that the Group will come up with the money when it is asked to do so.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first I would like to state quite briefly that we are now dealing with such a colossal issue that nobody can afford to blame anyone in any event. We must no longer blame anyone else. Finland, Sweden and Austria did not blame anyone for BSE. We implemented certain action as long as ten or fifteen years ago, and, probably as a result of that, any risk that we might have BSE is perhaps diminished. We are not claiming that there is none, but we have implemented the action that everyone should now finally be implementing. Firstly, we should specifically ensure that each Member State genuinely complies with the decisions that have now been taken, for they are not being complied with in every Member State. For this reason, it is an excellent move on the part of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to propose setting up a subcommittee to monitor food safety and, for example, the situation regarding BSE and other such problems, so that the dangers and risks that exist might be prevented in the future, especially when we take the matter of enlargement into consideration as that will involve some very large countries with livestock joining this Community.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it might be helpful if I could make a procedural point on this matter. Yesterday my group, as in so many votes in this House, were on automatic pilot, but some of us rather crash-landed, as we discovered, in the vote in respect of Amendment No 15, which was from the Group and called for the release of Mrs Zana and others. We had voted the wrong way. I have already had a correction made but I would ask you formally to facilitate through the day the possibility for colleagues in the Group to contact sessional services. Some are not here now, partly because of the interruption and partly because the issue had not been foreseen. I would welcome your assistance in the matter. (The Minutes were approved) ***

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ‘They died because they looked different, thought differently and lived a different kind of life.’ So read the title of an article in a daily newspaper on right-wing extremist violence in Germany. I do not intend to recount how many times Jewish cemeteries have suffered arson attacks and desecration, or describe to you the various racist attacks that have taken place. Racism in Germany and in Europe constitutes one of the greatest challenges our society has to overcome. Not only does racism put the minorities living amongst us at risk, it also jeopardises the values our societies were founded on after dreadful experiences. The European Union is the product of this development. We can only welcome the fact that the United Nations have seized the initiative and will hold a World Conference Against Racism next year. We must make use of this opportunity and make a clear European contribution to this conference. I very much regret that my colleagues from Germany are not present in the Chamber at the moment to join me in sending out the message that racism does not stand a chance, either in Germany or Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we discussed Mrs Stauner’s report in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on the basis of an opinion by Mr Thielemans and reached a number of unanimous conclusions containing a different political evaluation of the 1998 discharge on which I have three comments to make: First, we take the view that we must learn lessons from past cases and, of course, clear up every single case for which we have new, additional proof. Nonetheless, we want to give the Commission instructions which look to the future, not instructions to deal with a past for which it is not even responsible. Secondly, we passed punishable offences to the courts in a one-off show of strength during the last parliamentary term. We ensured that OLAF had the structure and facilities needed to pursue any suspicions or irregularities. We want, in the final analysis, to place our trust in the courts, OLAF and the disciplinary measures and decisions taken and to work together with President Prodi’s new Commission on a basis of trust and on the basis precisely of the relevant new rules and obligations introduced. Thirdly, this includes, as Mr Bourlanges explained earlier, acknowledging and accepting results such as the disciplinary proceedings carried out in the ECHO case, even if Mr Blak wants to fight this tooth and nail, as he said earlier. But every Member must, in the end, understand that, as Members of the European Parliament, we have to carry out our control duties as accurately as possible, but that we are neither detectives nor public prosecutors, let alone black angels of vengeance. Demanding a new audit, without submitting any proof or evidence, is hardly going to enhance the credibility of our Parliament.

Political group: PSE