GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Karas, I cannot resist commenting on your speech. In all instances where we already have sensible coordination of our economic policies in the European Union, we have chalked up enormous successes. Government budgets over the last year have for the first time in decades shown a surplus, and that still holds good, Mrs Peijs, if we exclude exceptional income from the sale of mobile telephone licences. I do not think that we should play this down in today's debate. The success stories in the current year will not be so great. That is because growth in the European Union has slowed down, but that is no reason to start harping on about inflation. Nor is it any reason to start panicking. No one can calm down our friends in the Group of the and the . No one – not in this House anyway – wants to print money. No one wants to print money as a way of solving finance policy problems. We only want to print money to provide the public with our new currency, the euro, on time, but nobody here is talking about an inadequate budgetary policy. However, you know that too. That is not what is at stake here! Essentially, it is about something quite different. You know very well that, in the past, these budget consolidation successes that I have been talking about were not achieved by increasing income but by cutting expenditure. Those expenditure cuts led to a positive result, but also had negative affects. In many areas, public infrastructure is in a state of decay. In many places social networks are under great pressure and our investment patterns both in the private sector and in the public sector have led to key strategic deficiencies in comparison with our competitors on the world scene. We now find ourselves in a situation in which government receipts will decline for cyclical reasons. So the vital question is this: what should we do in that situation? Are you really seriously envisaging further global cuts in public sector income and expenditure? Do you really want to freeze budgets so that we fail to make the investment necessary for our future? Do you want the European Union to enter a further procyclical phase which will prevent us from benefiting from long-term growth overall? I cannot imagine that that is what you want. Mr von Wogau asked me at lunchtime today what the Socialists really want. I can give him an answer: we want to stop these scare tactics! We want to put an end to talk that recovery in Europe is always just short-term, because if the central banks or governments are running scared, we will lose long-term opportunities. We have tabled amendments that we think are sensible. If you can agree to compromise with us, then we can find a common path. And if that is not possible, we will go our separate ways!

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr Mantovani is stuck in traffic and has asked me to put forward his position as shadow rapporteur, something that I am happy to do. The Cairo Action Programme has pursued important objectives as regards development policy. These are objectives that should, if achieved, improve living conditions in developing countries. Although it deals with an undoubtedly commendable initiative and with an issue that is very complex to deal with, this report does, in my opinion, overlook the principal objective set ten years ago at the Cairo Conference. As shadow rapporteur for our group, the Group of the European People’s Party , I do not believe that the urgent issues that we consider to be equally important have been dealt with adequately. These concern the population change in developing countries, that is to say the issues linked to education and access to training, nutritional problems, hygiene problems, economic growth and emigration. Instead, as is largely clear from the document presented by the rapporteur, Mrs Junker, the report focuses almost exclusively on issues concerning reproduction and sexual education, issues that are indeed very important but that do not necessarily have to be separated from a wider context and dealt with in a sterile manner, especially if these statements are not fully in line with the Cairo conclusions. Too many issues were indeed forgotten, issues that were, at the time, instead seen as key aspects of the structural population change in developing countries in future years. In my opinion, this report – which, I remind you, was adopted with 11 votes in favour and seven against in committee – needs to be reconsidered and must, above all, be brought back in line with what was established at the aforementioned Conference. In order to be consistent with the Action Plan’s objectives, I believe in particular that Recital R b, which stresses the importance and central nature of the family as an element of cohesion and unity in society, must be accepted. Furthermore, I hope, as was strongly suggested by our group, that paragraphs 6, 10, 11, 17, 23 and 26 might be rewritten so that they are more balanced. Moreover, if it is not reworded we cannot accept paragraph 20, which promotes outright abortion without considering national legal frameworks, and it does it specifically through information campaigns in developing countries for safe abortions. There is no doubt that sovereignty must be respected in this sensitive area, as must the ethics of each country, especially in such sensitive issues such as reproductive health and rights concerning reproduction. This is the position of the draftsman, the shadow rapporteur of the , Mr Mantovani.

Political group: PPE-DE
Satellite navigation is a particularly important space application with many uses: in shipping, in aircraft navigation, even in search and rescue operations. The development of the Galileo satellite navigation system by the EU would be a contribution to mankind if, despite assurances that it is a purely non-military system, there was not every indication that the European imperialists also intend it to be used for military purposes, within the framework of their ambition to share the role of global policeman with the USA. Among other things in yesterday's debate, Commissioner De Palacio mentioned that the system will have, over and above the signals to which everyone will have access, some signal to which only the states will have access. Although the report by Mr Pietrasanta has several positive points in comparison with previous reports on this matter, it leaves a number of questions on military use unanswered. That is why the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece abstained from the vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my words are also addressed to the voters present, who have come here today in the expectation of an interesting debate, and to the Commissioner, who has just yawned. As yesterday we did not even manage to decide what minimum would make lively debates possible, I shall henceforth be taking the liberty of stating the number of members present when I address them, so I greet fifteen ladies and gentlemen. This is about the Internet, that is to say the alternative to the performance laid on for you here, and about direct access for you to something that can constitute the democratic opinion-forming process. We are talking about eEurope; have you tried it out yet? Have you yet visited Parliament's website, or the Council's, or the Commission's? If you did, did you feel the way I did? You feel as if you are facing a wall full of binder files. Some people get aroused by the binder files, but most do not. It is children and young people who are looking for something different, seeking information and debate. That is possible; Europe has the chance to make it so, but we – by which I mean also we in this House – have to work like crazy on the design of our websites and also on their subject matter. The most important information is not there. That having been said, the Internet is of real importance to democracy. That brings me to my ceterum censeo: apart from that, there can be no democracy without transparency!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission's approach to this whole issue is totally inadequate. The fact is that you have accepted a ban on the substance we are speaking about for certain objects, for example teething rings. We all know that children under three put toys in their mouths. Allowing the sale of objects containing dangerous substances which children will put in their mouths goes completely against the precautionary approach. To justify this by saying that we label them is completely ridiculous. Children under three years of age cannot read and even children up to the age of six are not really capable of reading and even if they are, are they really competent to make decisions on this? What is happening here is that the Commission and others are bowing to the pressures of industry. When we talk about the precautionary approach, Mr Blokland is wrong. We should be looking for materials and substances for children's toys where there is no doubt about safety whatsoever. In banning some of the objects the Commission recognises that these substances are dangerous. It is just not acceptable to turn a blind eye to the others because of pressure from industry. Which comes first: children's health or the vested interests of industry? We must take the precautionary approach.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there has been heavy lobbying around this report because there is much at stake. I understand this very well and I share this concern. This directive, which is probably well-intentioned, is a threat to scores of small- and medium-sized enterprises in Europe who are at risk of losing their creativity as a result of all these patents. These small- and medium-sized enterprises are the avant-garde of the business sector. We must nurture these small- and medium-sized enterprises because they deliver innovation. This innovation enables us to maintain our position in the world market. We are against this directive because it represents over-regulation. The present protection offered by copyright is sufficient. We are often reproached as being busybodies. Well, here is the proof that we are not. As a matter of fact, there is talk in the USA of toning down patent laws, which are regarded as counterproductive. So why should we have to approve an outdated law in Europe?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the question concerning language teachers which has been put down for this Friday comes from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. It was the intention of those who tabled that question in the committee that it should come before the House accompanied by a motion for a resolution. We are discussing a serious matter. From time to time it is rightly said in this House that a citizens' Europe would be a Europe in which rights were properly enshrined in the law of the Union. That would be no good if rights already in the law can be flouted by the Member States. Twelve years ago the Court of Justice gave a judgment against Italy in the case of the foreign language lecturers. There have been two further judgments since then and the rights of these lecturers have not yet been satisfied. In my opinion, and I say it in the presence of a former attorney-general of Ireland, the Commission has not yet shown sufficient resoluteness in pursuing this matter. It is important that we have a question and debate with a resolution at the end of it. I ask it to be sent back to committee for preparation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I would like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent report on a difficult subject. I believe that Parliament must firmly reject human cloning. Recent developments in the United States are alarming indeed, but we cannot allow experimentation with, or a market in, human life. Technically speaking, there is no difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning. If we allow human cloning to proceed under the guise of therapeutic cloning, we risk abuses which I fear would result in the production of a handicapped or impaired child. This is my greatest fear about this experimentation and I believe those fears are well-founded in some of the statements made, such as those of Dr Antinori. Human embryos should not be created for research purposes, but this has indeed already happened in the US this summer. Patent protection must be excluded from such experimentation. Women are being used as the raw material for such research because there is an invasive procedure to extract eggs, the raw material for cloning. There is already a commercial trade in this, which is very reprehensible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy could have spoken jointly on this report and on the report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, since they are closely related. The present report discusses the integration of the environment into the common fisheries policy, and a part of the Green Paper also refers to the preservation of the environment in the marine sector. In reality, the strategy of integrating the environmental policy into the rest of the Union’s policies is a strategy which has been mentioned in recent European Councils repeatedly – especially in the Gothenburg European Council – but which is applied little in practice, especially in relation to the industrial policy, the fisheries policy and other Union policies. In relation to the fisheries sector – as the rapporteur says – it is unacceptable, for example, that a third of catches are destined for destruction for the production of meal and oils, especially if we also bear in mind that those meals and oils are not controlled and may later end up in the food chain, which could lead once again to a lack of food safety which is of so much concern in the European Union. We must respect reproduction periods and use nets that do not desolate the marine environment. We are witnessing on our coasts the continuous use of nets which desolate and wipe out all life on the seabed. Biological diversity must be preserved, as laid down in the sixth environmental action programme – which we discussed this week and which we are going to vote on at noon – preventing pollution of coastal areas. Mr President, I live in a country in which we are surrounded by coastal areas that are extremely beautiful and rich, but which are constantly affected by the actions of industry and excessive pressure from tourism. This also endangers fishing. I believe that we must not only act on the capacity of the fleet so that the resources we have can be replenished, but that we have to act, above all, on the sources of pollution which impede our marine wealth.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have a number of questions for Mr Solana, who was also the Secretary General of ΝΑΤΟ when the intervention was made in the former Yugoslavia. Mr High Representative, - Why is Milosevic one thing and Sharon another? - Why is the autocratic government which existed in the former Yugoslavia one thing and the government of Israel, whose members talk officially about the murder of Arafat, another? - Why is the KLA one thing and the jihad another? - Why are Kosovars, who have other rights, one thing and the Palestinians another? - How much longer are we going to have two sets of standards and such hypocrisy? - Why are we searching power stations in Iran with a magnifying glass and no one is telling us what nuclear weapons Israel has? - Why is there an international alliance and ‘desert storm’ when Saddam Hussein attacks Kuwait and just a few paltry announcements when Israel attacks Syria? - Why with the Berlin wall do we say ‘good-bye Lenin’ and with the Palestinian wall do we say ‘good morning Sharon’? - How far will we go? - Where is Europe? - Why is Europe paralysed? - Why does Europe have no voice when the United States does have a voice? - Why does Europe not take a specific initiative at the United Nations for there to be international forces in the area of tension between Israel and Palestine?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I had actually intended to say something completely different, but in the light of the last two speakers' comments I will digress somewhat and take up another point. We have heard things said that actually belong in the past – in a past that is, thankfully, long gone – a time when all that mattered was intervention and the class struggle, when people tried to create confrontation. I believe that this was completely the wrong attitude. History has condemned this approach and life punishes latecomers, as an extremely famous man once said, a man who had his roots in this system and then in the end also brought about its downfall because he knew it so well, I mean President Gorbachev. We want better environmental protection, more goods to be transferred from road to rail, a better modal balance and thus better protection for consumers. Better protection for consumers: let me give you an example of something that happened two days ago in my home region, in the cross-border Brenner Pass, where consignments of dangerous goods, which now have to be carried by road because there are no rail services that can handle them, caught fire, with very serious consequences for the environment and for the public. We escaped an environmental disaster by the skin of our teeth. This is our intention: we want to make transport safer, and here I am particularly grateful to my colleague, Mr Jarzembowski, who has been fighting for these initiatives to be taken for years. We hope that these reports – and his in particular – will mean that we can take a substantial step in the right direction. I am also grateful to the Vice-President of the Commission, Mrs de Palacio, who has a particularly good understanding of this issue and is endeavouring to achieve a modal balance. We hope that we can continue further along this positive route. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Prodi for having clarified in his speech certain points which, from a reading of the White Paper, could have given rise to misunderstandings. Today’s debate on governance is important because it aims at encouraging broader discussion on the meaning of European integration and its goals. It complements the debate on the future of the Union, and thus it should concentrate on the connection between general objectives and the concrete actions seen by the citizens. As we all know, what really lies at the basis of this deliberation is the realisation that the long-term credibility of European integration is undermined by the lack of mutual recognition between public structures and civil society. We must therefore involve numerous sections and expressions of civil society to the greatest extent possible, because in this way the citizens will also be playing a greater part in policy- and decision-making. This is an important task that the institutions of the European Union must all make a real effort to carry out together. To this end, I would recall that during the last Parliamentary term the European Parliament itself, and in particular the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, recognised the need to initiate and formalise a dialogue with civil society. To do this an effort must be made to identify the most representative groups, so as to avoid an excess of consultations and overlapping. We therefore ask for an Interinstitutional Agreement on this, which will lead to a division of labour and, at the same time, collaboration between Commission, Parliament and Council. A second important point, which has already been hinted at, is the need to simplify Community legislative procedures, distinguishing, that is, between political and legislative decisions, which must not become detailed technical instruments; and distinguishing between Parliament’s prerogatives and competences that belong to the executive. Something that you, Mr Prodi, have mentioned is therefore important: the need to specify a call-back mechanism for secondary legislation which can safeguard and strengthen the role of the European Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly I would like to pay tribute to Mr Katiforis for his work for the Greek Presidency within the Convention. The European Council was quite right to resist the temptation to deconstruct the Convention's work. The result would certainly be greatly inferior. As far as the revision of Part III is concerned, I am prepared to turn myself into a technician, pure or not, for the final phase of the work. I quite agree with President Prodi that it is vital to extend the scope of qualified-majority voting as far as we can if the Council is in the future to be able to enjoy the capacity to take decisions. But what about Part IV concerning the revision and the entry-into-force procedures? The European Council was completely silent upon this point. Was it brought up and, if so, what was said? Would Mr Simitis agree with me that unless we can modify the future revision procedures we will be forever trapped in the dual lock of unanimity plus national ratification procedures – frequently protracted and problematical? Surely it is desirable that the Union avoids putting itself inside such a straitjacket. We must find a sufficiently flexible form of modifying the Constitutional settlement if we are to be able to move with the changing circumstances we will face in the years to come. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first I want to congratulate the three rapporteurs, especially Mrs Pack, because just before our sitting commenced, she proved that behind her harsh political voice there hides a sweet, melodic voice, and that is something very, very important. I want to say that this reform, with the addition of the legal terms, was needed, is important and results in a better working order. Nonetheless, I want to express a number of concerns. These concerns relate both to certain permanent agencies receiving Community funds and to the procedure for selecting the agencies which are not permanent. I fear that we are in danger of creating certain agencies that will eat up the Community budget and of complicating work which could be carried out through them. On the other hand, by leaving an important area of the decision concerning these agencies to the Budget Authority, which are not permanent, I think that we reduce transparency and the proper criteria for selecting beneficiaries. I want to express particular concern about the Youth programme. I fear that the European Youth Forum is very detached from the new generation and from agencies which relate to the real world of youth. I also fear that the criteria for the selected agencies, according to which, for example, an agency which pursues an objective of general European interest in the field of youth or an objective which forms part of the policy of the European Union can be selected, result in our castrating young people. We should accept and encourage contestation and questions concerning the policies of the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL