GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, ladies and gentlemen, because this year’s budget is the budget of an enlarged Europe, we must understand – as Members have done – the substantial negative factors accompanying the excellent work carried out by the rapporteur, Mr Mulder, the chairman, Mr Wynn and the coordinators. Whilst underlining the positive mediation role carried out by my coordinator, Mr Walter, I want to point to three negative factors: First of all, payments have been maintained at very restrictive levels, one of the lowest for the last ten years; secondly, in the context of the structural funds, at the end of the year we saw the usual refund of almost EUR 5 billion to the Member States; thirdly, the dispute – already referred to – over Heading 4: as it has done before, the Council proposed cuts in Parliament’s traditional priorities for the purpose of financing this year’s emergency, Iraq. Last year it was Afghanistan. It is against this background that the usual fight between the poor relations has broken out: cut the budget lines for MEDA or for Asia, cut the funds for illnesses linked to poverty or the funds for humanitarian aid, and other possible solutions. I wonder how far the flexibility instrument and painstaking accounting will enable the circle to be squared? Moreover, as if that were not enough, this year the entire budget procedure has been weighed down, as we all know, by a series of attacks against Parliament’s budgetary powers in the context of the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. It is clear that the problem is political and much broader, as many Members have noted. The problem arises from the lack of generosity on the part of certain Member States towards the Union – yesterday’s letter is a further demonstration of that – as if the road travelled together so far were not sufficient to demonstrate that the resources granted to the European Union are resources given to ourselves, for the peace, security and well-being of the Member States. The accounts of the European Union cannot be taken as the starting point for establishing its political priorities. This is why I appreciate the action taken by Mr Prodi and by the Commission over which Mr Prodi presides: because the Commission is succeeding in providing guidance. Our political initiative, and that of the European Parliament, must strengthen this ability and force the Member States to transform their short-sightedness into the capacity to create a vision, to give political direction enabling recovery to take place, to make further progress in the field of a major supranational authority. What we want to achieve is not merely a wider geographical Union of 25 States, what we must achieve is a genuine political objective.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I carefully read your statement in response to the speech by the French Minister for Home Affairs. I believe that the matter of nationhood is a concept that is far too complex to be dealt with like this, on a point of order, in a forum such as this. This is a far-reaching debate, engaging all European Union Member States, not one that can be brushed aside. I think that the words of the French Minister for Home Affairs were understood correctly in Germany, and that we should follow the example of the sensible way in which the authorities there reacted.

Political group: PSE
I voted in favour of this report. The European Union, and the European Parliament in particular, consider the protection of citizens, their environment, their daily lives and their health to be of great importance. Balanced texts on these subjects are very often approved at Community level. It is apparent to us, however, that the transposition of a number of directives by the Member States is being unjustifiably delayed. The directive on urban waste water treatment is an example of a directive that has been poorly applied. It was adopted in 1991 with the aim of protecting the environment against the effects of urban waste water and biodegradable waste water discharge from the food industry. When it was applied, the directive brought about a measured improvement in water quality. The Member States’ main duty is to put in place systems for collecting and processing waste water and to respect a pre-established timetable. However, not only are some Member States delaying in passing on all the information required to carry out an objective assessment of this directive but, even worse, others are not communicating any information on this subject. This is absolutely unacceptable! I therefore demand that the time the Member States take to do this should not increase, that all the information is passed onto the Commission, as stipulated in the directive which was adopted in a timely manner by the Council. I came out in favour of the Commission’s launch of infringement procedures in cases where the criteria for identification of sensitive areas have not been respected or taken into account.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the announcement last week was bad enough. The comments from some US officials, including Mr Aldonas, that somehow protectionism is warranted to correct wider macroeconomic factors is potentially even worse. It displays a dangerous and economically illiterate philosophy that needs to be strongly rebuffed. The question is: how do we rebuff it? Firstly, we need to ensure that we consolidate our friendships with those allies with whom we wish to act together against American unilateralism. And if there is one tactical concern my group has about brandishing safeguard measures against those steel exports that might be diverted from the US to Europe, it is that it might actually alienate countries such as Russia, India and Brazil, with whom we have to act together in the WTO and the OECD to take on this American move. Therefore, we would ask the Commission and, of course, the Council, as a matter of urgency to try and negotiate bilateral voluntary export restraint agreements with these countries, so as to avoid the diversion from steel going to America to Europe happening in the first place. The obvious danger if we do not achieve this is that we end up having spats with precisely the people we should be teaming up with against this American behaviour. The second point is this: let us not be squeamish; this decision was taken for domestic political reasons. It will only be reversed or limited if domestic political pressures dictate that should be the case. In order to do that, we need to brandish big sticks which are felt on the domestic US political scene. And conveniently enough, if inelegantly, we do have such a big stick, in the form of the measures we can take within the context of the foreign sales cooperation dispute. Of course, we do not wish to mix these things formally; but let us not be naive. The FSC dispute provides us with the best means by which to inflict the domestic pressure which is absolutely necessary in order to get some change in the American attitude and to reassert the international rule of law, rather than the rule of the law of George Bush's economic jungle. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as shadow rapporteur for the Garot report on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat, I should like once again here to make clear reference to the shadow side of the report. The report, which basically makes provision for a compensation fund for pigfarmers, and hence goes beyond the Commission proposal, was adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I moved on behalf of our group for a split vote, as I personally reject the idea of a compensation fund for pigfarmers. I am quite happy to say yes to a piggy bank for pigfarmers, but I say ‘no’ to a compensation fund for pigfarmers, especially to a compensation fund co-financed from European money. I take the view that we do not need any more regulations or state intervention. The whole point of the free market is that supply and demand even out at a specific price. It is true that pigfarmers have been hit by an historic slump in prices. But it was preceded by a period of economic stability. A relatively limited supply, as the result of swine fever and the BSE debate and high exports to third countries have benefited prices and our farmers are again demanding that politics should keep out of it as far as possible. This is again a good starting point for proving it. To my mind, this is no time for hysteria. Every self-respecting agricultural textbook talks of two classical pig cycles. What we have seen over the last three years, albeit more drastically, is part of the classical pig cycle. The pigmeat market is now one of the few agricultural markets which is still basically free from state intervention. And the pigfarmers in my country are delighted at the fact. Setting up a compensation fund will quicken the concentration of European slaughter pig production considerably because the risk of bigger capital investments will shift to the common fund. I am aware of the fact that totally disparate agricultural philosophies apply in Europe; the philosophy of the federal system in Germany is quite different from that of the centralistic system in France. I am quite against the idea of co-financing by the EU. I am against any increase in state intervention. As for European regulations – as many as are needed, but as few as possible. What will we think up if there are any more agricultural risks, for example in the poultry sector? We cannot stuff money into a new EU piggy bank every time. That would indeed be the thin end of the wedge. Instead, it makes more sense if every pigfarmer sets up his own reserve, i.e. if every pigfarmer has his own piggy bank. That is what I should like to see.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, as Socialist rapporteur for the report on Romania, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report. I believe that Romania has embraced the challenge of a transition to an open democratic market economy. It has successfully embraced reforms which are essential to secure a more prosperous and safer future. As both the Commission report and Baroness Nicholson's report acknowledges, some progress has been made in improving conditions for some minorities. Romania has ratified major human rights conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the revised European Social Charter. But ratification is not enough. What matters most is implementation of the rights contained in those conventions. I also believe that the Commission wrongly defines minority rights solely in terms of the Roma and Hungarian communities. The rights of these minorities are essential to a free, open, democratic and European Romania, but I am also particularly concerned about the rights of other minorities such as the groups listed in Article 13 of the TEU: those who suffer from discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religious belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Laws do not in themselves solve the problems. Indeed, the Romanian Upper House refuses to act on removing homosexuality from the penal code. This is nothing short of scandalous. Blatant discrimination occurs in other countries such as Poland and Malta. In Poland recently, the former President, Lech Walensa, told a campaign rally, 'I believe these people (gays) need medical treatment. Imagine if they were all like that! We would not have any descendants.' That is as ignorant as it is misinformed and we must make every effort to ensure that when we look at the accession countries human rights and the treatment of the minorities are at the top of the agenda.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, relations between the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Budgets were always tense during preliminary work on the budget. That is clear and, given that the greater part of the budget falls within the agricultural sector, it was only to be expected. Which is why it is particularly pleasing that, on this occasion, we can state that cooperation has been a whole lot better than in the past. This is in no small measure owing to the committee chairpersons and, above all, the rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, but also, it should be added, to senior members of all groups. Nevertheless, not all the wishes of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development would manage a majority today; we know that. All the same, we place particular importance on not accepting the Council proposals for across-the-board cuts and, above all, on providing for a moderate increase in veterinary and plant health expenditure and in sales promotion. Veterinary and plant health expenditure is not just agricultural expenditure, but also expenditure in terms of sensible, forward-looking consumer protection. The new second pillar in the matter of rural development is, of course, a special concern of the Committee. Here we simply cannot understand the reservation of the Council. We are pleased that, in its letter of amendment, the Commission opposes Parliament’s position. The multifunctional tasks of agriculture relating to food, maintaining the countryside, nature conservation and tourism as a job sector of the future which will expand rather than diminish are a major concern for the whole Parliament. The Council really must accept that, in future, changes will be made to agricultural sector expenditure across the individual blocks of which it is made up. But that must not lead to us pursuing the cheap option and imagining that we can simply free up money for other policy areas by making across-the-board cuts in the agricultural sector, which not only covers expenditure on farmers but also that on all rural matters. It should be noted that recent years have seen a convergence of Parliament and the Commission in this sector. The previous lack of vision on the part of the Council must give way to a more realistic approach, not least with a view to what the future holds for us in terms of the powers of Parliament, also where the budget is concerned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on a most balanced report and then, if I may, I should like to comment on a strategic point which particularly concerns me. Following the political upheaval in central and eastern Europe, association agreements were concluded in a bid to help these countries one day become members of the European Community or Union. Ukraine was not one of them. The question of the borders of Europe, which reappeared on the agenda with the fall of the Iron Curtain, has never been seriously discussed here, and hence nor has the fate of Ukraine. However, the answer to the question of the borders of Europe is that Europe does not end east of Bulgaria because that is where Ukraine lies, and not just Ukraine. Europe’s borders cannot be determined unequivocally, which is why the complete enlargement of the European Union is a contradiction in terms. The current enlargement concept will inevitably bring about new divisive borders in Europe, for example between Poland and Ukraine. This is a huge problem, which is why we need a new concept. Since 1989/90, Europe has no longer been politically or geographically divided; it has become an open continent. What sort of concept do I mean? The principle of exclusivity, whereby a candidate country is either fully assimilated into the EU or is completely excluded should be replaced by the following concept: any country which thinks of itself as either partly or wholly European, such as Ukraine, should be given the opportunity to decide if, and to what extent, it is willing and able to subscribe to European policy. This would maintain the vision of the founding fathers of a free Europe in the dialectic sense and allow us to focus again on the crux of the matter, as formulated at the time, namely to create peace in freedom for all the nations of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
By agreement with Europe, Austria and Switzerland have laid down limits for heavy goods vehicles, and new railways, currently being built or designed, are planned. This is part of the trans-European transport network, which proposes the Turin-Lyon rail link as an alternative to road travel. The Commission recommended the route for the Aosta-Martigny tunnel, which was restored by the authorities in the Val d’Aosta, in accordance with the Protocol on the Implementation of the Alpine Convention in the field of Transport signed by the States and soon to be signed by the Commission. The Mont Blanc and Fréjus tunnels will now serve as a test to see whether the intention is genuine: the former was closed to traffic following the tragedy whereas the latter has seen a great increase in the transiting of heavy goods vehicles. The communities of the valleys leading to the tunnels voiced their anxiety and concern: in the Chamonix valley there was a request for a ban on heavy goods vehicles and in the Val d’Aosta a request was made for a quota system. There are no limits on heavy goods traffic in the western Alps. Italy and France are going to establish such limits – I recall a draft law I submitted to the Chamber of Deputies – together with the local communities, and communicate them to Europe so that Europe can modify the trans-European transport network and specify the changes in the Commission’s White Paper, which will also cover vehicle transit through the Alps. Measures must be laid down to govern road tunnels between Italy and France, in order to achieve a uniform system throughout the Alps now that the Mont Blanc tunnel is being reopened.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office, practically all the Members have expressed this Parliament’s hopes that you will succeed in bringing this extraordinary task – the Intergovernmental Conference and the constitution – to a successful conclusion. Good luck, we are right behind you! Together with these extraordinary tasks, however, you will also have ordinary tasks to deal with, to which I should like to draw your attention. I shall just mention the main headings: the first is research, which was brought up again by Mr Prodi and which we all agree on. There is also, however, an ethical component in the financing of such research – my colleague Mr Liese will be speaking about it – and we should like you to give us your response on this, leaving aside the woolly obscurantism that Mr Pannella mentioned, which does not actually exist. There are two other issues dear to my heart that I should like to bring to your attention: air transport safety and air passengers’ rights. Unfortunately it took the tragedy of Sharm el-Sheikh to show just how strongly the public feels about this and how much we need to finalise a measure that has been inexplicably stuck in the Council since October last year. Just as inexplicably stuck, Mr President-in-Office, is a measure that this Parliament approved by an overwhelming majority: greater protection for air passengers if they are denied boarding or in the event of cancellations or delays. One government – the German Government – has inexplicably changed its mind, perhaps because it is more sensitive to Lufthansa’s arguments than to the passengers’. I am aware that your government, Mr President-in-Office, was opposed to this measure, but I cannot criticise that because you have always held a consistent position; I am referring instead to those strange, last-minute changes of mind. I am sure that, in your new garb as President-in-Office of the Council, you will be able to further these measures and bring them to a conclusion, because they are in the interests of the European public and our fellow citizens are awaiting them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, according to the Commission proposal adopted by our rapporteur, Mr Sterckx, the main stated aim is to liberalise air transport further and make it subject to the rules of the free market. In this way, or so the Commission and our rapporteur tell us, we will see reduced expenditure on the part of airlines, better passengers services and more innovation. It is therefore proposed that airports, with all the strategic importance which they have for a country’s safety, should be surrendered to the multinationals, despite the negative implications this would have, and that the aspirations of private-sector airport owners to reap maximum profits should be promoted. It is also proposed that the sovereign right of each country to control air traffic in its air space should be surrendered to the European Union, on the pretext of establishing a uniform system of air safety. At the same time, the proposal calls for the privatisation of the operational bodies responsible for air traffic control which, it says, will be responsible for all the EU’s air space and will compete with each other. This proposal, aside from abrogating the sovereign right of each country over its own air space, will give rise to confusion and will have particularly negative and dangerous repercussions on air safety as, objectively speaking, the competition which is being vaunted here as the trump card will be competition for maximum profit and not for maximum air safety. The proposal argues that all this will reduce flight delays and hence the expenditure of the airlines. And maybe it will. Nonetheless, as experience with similar cases shows, it is doubtful whether a rise in profits will mean cheaper tickets or improved services. On the contrary, the situation will deteriorate. It is also proposed to end state aid to airlines. This, however, will prove disastrous for air connections to and from disadvantaged areas. Greece is a typical example. This ignores the indisputable fact, as the experience of official organisations and trade unions for workers in the civil aviation industry around the world has shown, that constant reductions in the running costs of aircraft and ground services, together with wall-to-wall privatisation and the private sector’s goal of maximum profit, are the reason for the continuous rise in the number of air accidents. These are the reasons why we shall be voting against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this question of sustainability is indeed of great interest and the priority of the Swedish Presidency is welcome. But what our citizens want to know is what is the Council planning to do to ensure the public dissemination of the results of the Cardiff process to all citizens and governments of Member States and accession countries? I do not think the Council has been particularly active in the past. I know that the Swedish Presidency wants to change that and involve citizens more extensively and be more transparent. I want some information about that and specifically about the Industry Council. The Council is committed to a full-blown strategy by 2004. What short-term targets or actions and indicators will be needed to ensure its full development? How will the external impact of the industry strategy be evaluated? You have also referred at length to energy. Energy efficiency is an important priority. We have a report about to go before this House in Brussels. Will you take any steps on the action plan for energy efficiency?

Political group: Verts-ALE