GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I am a great supporter of enlargement and, having been, among other things, chairman of the delegation to Slovenia, have been a convinced defender of this policy. Turning to the subject of the Czech Republic, I would like to state that I had always hoped that the Czechs would, in good time, cast aside the dead weight of history and make it possible for us to vote for the Czech Republic's accession to the European Union with joy and a clear conscience. It is unfortunate that the failure of many Czech politicians' courage has prevented that; hence also my vote against, in solidarity with Mr Ferber. I hope that the Czechs will in future get round a table and find there a way of working through the past together.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have arrived at a crucial milestone in the history of Europe. I think that all of us experienced a pleasant buzz during this morning’s meeting. From 1 May 2004, the Community will include no fewer than 25 countries. Almost the whole of Europe will now be united as a community. Ten candidate countries have essentially completed their preparations for membership. It has been a demanding and often painful process for these countries. They have still to develop the administrative and judicial capacity needed for implementing and complying with EU legislation in purely practical terms, for example in the areas of agriculture, food and the environment. That also applies at regional and local levels. One of the things I believe is that it is important for there, in actual practice, to be compliance in all the sectors with the requirements for the integration of environmental and health protection. That especially applies within agriculture and within infrastructure development. It is a requirement that applies not only up until the accession of the new Member States but also, and most significantly of all of course, after that date. Within the framework established as recently as at the Brussels Summit in October, the conditions of accession are now finally to be agreed for each individual new Member State. What is fundamentally required in the negotiations is a high degree of flexibility, as well as of solidarity both with the candidate countries and, reciprocally, between the Member States. We must see to it that the new Member States are guaranteed fair conditions of competition so that their accession to the EU can make a positive contribution to the development of the countries’ prosperity. Moreover, I say this partly because only a positive and convincing endorsement by people at the forthcoming referendums will put this important enlargement in the proper perspective. I am convinced that the Danish Presidency and Commissioner Verheugen have the flexibility and the attitude of solidarity that will make it possible in Copenhagen to take the final decision on accession for each individual country, and if not on 12 December, then on 13 December.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we shall be voting in favour of the report on priorities in EU road safety, as it includes a number of practical measures which may reduce, at least slightly, the number of deaths in road accidents. It is deplorable that road accidents represent the most common cause of death amongst children and adults under 45 years. However, although most of the measures are positive, they target motorists alone, thus absolving car manufacturers as well as the government, and society in general, of any responsibility. What is the point of measures, binding or otherwise, to encourage motorists to keep their speed down, when car manufacturers not only produce cars that greatly exceed speed limits but even make this a selling point? What is the point of calling upon motorists to be careful and to reduce the time they spend at the wheel, when, in the quest for profit, the road haulage industry and large retail and industrial companies force lorry drivers to drive until they are extremely tired? What is the point of lamenting the fact that road traffic accounts for 95% of accidents involving all forms of transport – there is hence no possible comparison with trains or aircraft – if every government’s policy is to encourage road transport, openly or implicitly, over all other types of transport, for both the public and freight. Even in Europe’s richest countries, public transport is underdeveloped and many people use their cars not through choice but out of necessity, due to a lack of adequate public transport. In the race for profit and zero stock, large companies are forced to see road transport as part of their production line and this transforms some motorways into a long, almost endless chain of lorries. Even on the limited question of truck-on-train technology, what happens in actual practice is the opposite of the official line. On a more general note, a sensible approach to transport would require a sensible approach to manufacturing, an approach, in other words, that does not place profit above all else. This, however, is a far cry from the laughable measures proposed by the Commission and by this report. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, by this stage of the debate many things have been said. This allows us to take up some of the ideas again by way of a conclusion. This resolution on restructuring in industry has arisen today because one company, Michelin, decided to make 7,500 people redundant. Of course the situation is tragic, but it is interesting to note today that we are able to talk about restructuring in industry not from a purely economic point of view, but raising the human issues that it involves. I think that it is quite right to link this resolution to Michelin’s situation. To axe 7,500 jobs today, when neither a company’s financial or industrial output allow us to attribute these redundancies to some kind of crisis, is quite unacceptable from the legal point of view alone. From the human point of view, this situation is not only unacceptable; it is indecent and immoral. The fact that a simple PR exercise allows a company’s share value to rise by 12% whilst no extra value has been created, no extra tyre has been manufactured or sold, giving the impression that huge sums of money could simply appear spontaneously as a result of the financial markets alone, shows utter contempt for human labour. While shareholders are selling their stock and making a gain, men and women are finding out that they will be the only ones to suffer from the situation. This is the heavy price that European employees must pay so that a few investors can maximise their return. In the measures that have been proposed, Commissioner, you talked about social costs and the way we should take them into account in the long term. It is obviously essential, as a matter of urgency, that this measure is complemented by strengthening the directives on collective redundancies and European Company statutes. It is also essential to envisage new forms of social redistribution, financed by the shareholders of prosperous companies that make employees redundant with the sole aim of increasing the price of their shares. Finally we are waiting for an explanation which will enable us to find out if we will be able to vote on this compromise resolution, omitting the word Michelin. In any case, this debate has clearly shown the political division in this House which does not disappear even in supposedly “compromise” resolutions.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, today, having celebrated the completion of enlargement, it is right that this House should also sketch, for the benefit of those who are to be elected here, some of the outlines that will have to determine the EU’s foreign policy commitments and underpin our own commitment during the campaign for the coming European elections. You will be aware how perturbed some of our neighbours and friends on the other side of the Mediterranean are today at the prospect of our Union devoting excessive energy and resources to the realisation of its new internal unity, to the detriment of the interest it should have in their own future. I am sure that Jean Monnet, whose memory we honoured this morning, and whose humanism was leavened by pragmatism, would not have failed to notice that a continued contribution to the development of our Southern neighbours was not only Europe’s duty, but also in its interest and in the interests of generations yet to come, on both sides of the Mediterranean. Along with Mr Cohn-Bendit, I had the privilege of presenting, two years ago, an own-initiative report on the privileged partnership that the European Union and the Arab Maghreb Union had agreed to establish. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to join with a large number of Members of this House in the inaugural session of the Euro-Mediterranean Forum in Athens. It is my hope that, when Parliament reassembles, many of those of us in whom their electors put their trust will continue to work with determination to extend to North Africa, to the Middle East and to the whole of the continent of Africa, the area of peace and stability that our forebears were able to establish on both banks of the Rhine 60 years ago. To do so is not only Europe’s vocation, but also in its interests.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we are grateful to you for your report on trends in net government borrowing in the European Union, Mr Solbes Mira. I believe that, overall, the message here is a positive one. When the Maastricht Treaty was drawn up, it was assumed that maximum permissible net government borrowing would be 3%. Today, taking the average for the euro area, it has dropped back to around 1%, and we are moving towards balanced budgets, that is to say very much in the right direction. Commissioner, does it not worry you that it appears that in Germany next year, instead of falling, net government borrowing will increase by a further 0.5%, despite the fact that income from UMTS licences this year has been like manna from heaven for Germany's finances? We have noted that this development is taking place in the largest country in the euro area, whereas the Netherlands and Finland have already achieved what we are seeking, that is budget surpluses which enable excessive debt to be repaid. So let me ask you once again: does this not worry you? I would like to stress once again that we in the Group of the regard the independence of the European Central Bank, combined with consistent application of stability and growth factors, as being a fundamental requirement for price stability in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission communication, although somewhat late in arriving, seeks to address and resolve the issue of the sensitive relationship between the European Union and the international training market, the principle leaders of which are currently the United States and some European countries, which are, moreover, in competition. The initiation of this debate and the excellent report by Mrs De Sarnez would appear to be extremely important within the European Union, particularly in the field of higher education, for they highlight how little Europe has been involved thus far. Evidence of this is the mere existence of national bilateral exchange programmes developed by the Member States. However, I feel that the two goals identified for cooperation between the EU and third countries are particularly positive: firstly, the development of high-quality human resources, which can only be achieved through high-quality training or education; and secondly, the promotion of a world centre of excellence for study, training and research situated in Europe. I would also have liked to see some sort of reference to Cedefop and the Turin agency, which contribute a great deal in this field, particularly as regards research. However, the issue is not just the quality of courses and programmes but the mutual recognition of qualifications too, an area in which we are guilty of being severely behind schedule. We therefore need to establish transnational training modules of certified, recognised quality, provide incentives for student exchange programmes and language learning and improve the study grant system, providing vocational integration grants for students from third countries, who, although certainly free to choose where to settle down and work, might be more useful if a vocational integration grant were available to enable them to go home to their own States and contribute to their development. This is certainly a major challenge – a challenge for the Europe of culture and values – which we cannot afford not to take up and in which we must succeed.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my warmest thanks go to Mrs Dybkjær for this eminently timely and important report. We all share a concern about how balanced the representation of gender is going to be in the European Parliament in the next legislature. We have a good six months to work hard to dispel this concern and we should not be afraid. Equality is one of the European fundamental values which the new Member States have also committed themselves to respecting. There can be no genuine democracy if women are unable to participate in decision-making at all its levels. The fact is that the establishment of pluralist parliamentary democracy does not in itself guarantee equal participation of women and men in political decision-making. We could have rid ourselves of the problem entirely by developing a common European act regarding elections, in which gender equality would be guaranteed. Female politicians have to be made strong professionals in their field with the help of training and financial and moral support. This way the reasons for the lower areas of competency with regard to the women in a quota system compared to their male colleagues would become groundless and fade away. The aim of an equal society is dimly visible as decision-making without the need for quotas, with the highest decision-making bodies representing the genders equally. It would not seem, however, that we will achieve this without an interim stage, with the EU, the Member States and the political parties actively involved in working jointly on behalf of equality. The political groups should agree common policies to reach a position where in the end equality becomes a reality in economic, political and social life. I now want to throw down the gauntlet, as it were, and ask the male Members of the European Parliament here to think about whether they have ever voted for a woman. Furthermore, if you are also influential in your country’s political arena would you propose a woman as President of the Commission? Moreover, if there is an office of President of the EU, who might the woman be whom you would vote for as President?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although a number of questions remain open, let me say from the outset that I endorse the three reports before us on the ‘Erika II’ package, while at the same time emphasising that we urgently need to adopt them and, even more, to implement them. Improvements are still needed and, I hope, are still possible; that is the purpose of the amendments my group has tabled. I will confine my comments to two points I regard as crucial. The first is the need for greater democracy, to enable the various players involved in this sector to have a say in the decision-making process. Secondly, we must go further on the question of compensation. Coming back to the first point, priority must be attached to giving the men and women involved a say. That is a democratic requirement to which the European Union constantly refers as one of its values; but it is also a question of effectiveness. If we want to improve safety at sea we must also mobilise all the citizens concerned, in particular nature conservation associations, trade union organisations and, more generally, the personnel involved in maritime traffic. With regard to compensation, we very much need this initiative. We have to listen to the victims, the elected representatives, the local associations involved. We must give them a say in the actual evaluation of the consequences of the damage as also in the decisions on compensation. They have a role to play in the management of the COPE Fund. The same requirement should apply to the Safety Agency, which should be open to representatives of the employees of this industry, to representatives of the associations, who have the kind of know-how that is crucial to any proper evaluation. In even broader terms, I believe that the agency should ensure that they are involved in its initiatives on a regular basis. On the second point, it is unacceptable that in the final analysis much of the damage caused by maritime disasters is borne by the people who are the victims. That is the reason for establishing the COPE Fund and that is why we are supporting this initiative. Let me say once again that I think it would be very judicious to hold the ship owners and charterers liable both financially and under criminal law. We must also establish the link between the nationality of the ship owner and the flag flown by the ship. Lastly, according to some estimates, the COPE compensation ceiling of EUR 1 billion will suffice for the Erika disaster. I believe that to accept that ceiling would mean accepting that we do not pay full compensation for other disasters, which, alas, we cannot exclude at this point, and therefore that the countries concerned have to bear much of the costs. We would have preferred no ceiling to be set, so that the compensation corresponded as closely as possible to the real need; in the meantime, I believe we should consider raising that ceiling.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to ask you to make a change to the nominal list. I would like Amendment No 42 to be put to the vote after Amendment No 55. This may seem illogical but it is not, as Amendment No 55 replaces what is stated in Amendment No 42 under a different article. The rapporteur is in agreement with this. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0280/2003) by Lissy Gröner, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a second phase of a programme of Community action (2004-2008) to prevent violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at-risk (the DAPHNE II programme) (COM(2003) 54 – C5-0060/2003 – 2003/0025(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0268/2003) by María Izquierdo Rojo, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the Economic Accounts for Agriculture in the Community (COM(2003) 50 – C5-0020/2003 – 2003/0023(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0180/2003) by Ioannis Koukiadis, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on legal bases and compliance with Community law (2001/2151(INI)) Before the vote:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we conclude this debate, I should like to come back once again to a point of detail arising from the 1999 budget, which is now extended to 2000 and 2001 as well. I am referring to the SYNERGY Programme. This energy programme was discontinued in December 1999 by the new Director-General of DG Energy and Transport. There is a difference of opinion over the Programme's minimum threshold. The Director-General only wishes to approve programmes involving amounts of EUR 400 000 and above, whereas the Council's Energy Working Group has set a figure of EUR 200 000. As a result of this dispute, the implementation of the SYNERGY Programme has now been blocked for a year and a half. The whole situation is becoming farcical, for it even proved impossible to reach an agreement at Permanent Representative level and the issue actually ended up on the agenda for the Foreign Ministers' meeting on 9 April. Indeed, we risk losing the funds for 2001, which would mean that we would not have implemented two-thirds of an energy budget-line. This House should therefore call upon the Commission to take issue with the incredibly obdurate attitude of the new Director-General, Mr Lamoureux, and ensure that an amicable agreement is reached.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that what has been said on this subject is very important. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly support the comments made by my fellow Member, Mrs Terrón i Cusí. I believe that, although we set the objective of harmonisation with the Treaty of Amsterdam and we took a huge step forward at Tampere, thanks, amongst other things, to Commissioner Vitorino’s involvement, we took two steps back with the Seville European Council. Because, rather than talking about a global harmonisation policy, about a policy which will take proper account of all the disparities, all the complex points of existing laws, and which will bring about harmonisation, everything is focused on the issue of illegal immigration instead. What was proposed at Seville was very disturbing, because if we had carried the Seville proposals through to their logical conclusion, we would have imposed sanctions on the countries of the South that are already suffering from famine, war and violence. We would have imposed sanctions on them to force them to take back their nationals. This shows that we understand nothing: we do not understand that those who migrate do not leave their country out of pleasure: they leave because they are victims of violence and poverty. There is another issue that concerns me as well, Commissioner, that of the ‘brain drain’ affecting the countries of the South. Today, as we know, nobody objects to admitting young IT professionals. Nobody objects to hiring young students either. However, when it comes to the question of the immigration of regular and regulated flows, we will no longer accept anyone. We fall back into the trap of these old fantasies or, quite simply, of meaningless phrases such as zero immigration or ‘wide-open’ borders. In seeing people come to our countries and fall into the hands of slum landlords we clearly find the great liberal ideal which drives some of us. . I shall conclude by also saying that I am shocked to see that the majority of immigration policies are dealt with by the Home Affairs Ministers. I think that this issue must be a part of a co-development policy, since it does not stop at sanctions. We know that, today, the UK army can turn people away and we know that there are refugee camps in France. In my view, therefore, cancelling third world debt, Commissioner, and helping development with a good governance policy appear to be solutions that we must not disregard if we want to have a fairer and more humane immigration policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL