GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, in a report to the 133 Committee on the WTO meeting in Qatar, the Commission asserts that ‘active participation by European civil society strengthened the hand of the EU negotiator’. This creates the impression that popular movements should be just as deliriously happy as Mr Lamy about the result from Qatar. That is an unusually impudent lie. The truth is that the environmental and solidarity organisations are criticising the EU’s action in Doha and characterising the final agreement as a defeat for the poor peoples of the world. The International Forum on Globalisation observes, for example, that the results from Qatar signify ‘the ultimate triumph for the world trade body whose very mission is to exclude civil society from shaping economic systems’. Prior to the Laeken Summit, ATTAC Belgium wrote that, partly because of its support for the WTO, the EU est essentiellement déterminée par les intérêts des institutions financières et des grandes entreprises. The truth is that both the European popular movements and representatives of the developing countries are very embittered about the EU negotiators’ way of using the language of force to twist the arms of the poor countries’ representatives. It is bad enough that the Commission should represent a Eurocentric, self-regarding and neo-liberal trade policy, but is it not rather crude, Mr Lamy, untruthfully to try to make Europe’s popular movements jointly responsible for the shameful abuse of power of which the EU was guilty in Doha?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the European Commission boasts a whole raft of competences which are important in terms of a civil contribution to keeping those situations under control which threaten to get out of hand. Those competences can be deployed in the stabilisation phase following a violent conflict, to prevent the situation from hitting crisis point again. In addition to the usual aid personnel, these competences also involve monitors, the deployment of government officials, trainers and police. They translate into projects and aid policy specifically designed to bring stability to a certain region. We very much welcome the dimension of political and organisational coherence in all these civil instruments in the form of a rapid reaction facility. In this way, the EU’s responsibility for the international legal order can be developed much more effectively. Furthermore, it gives the Commission and the competent Commissioner a chance to bring forward their own initiatives and proposals in this field. In our opinion, the interplay between the rapporteur and the Commission has led to an excellent resolution. Particular efforts have been made to avoid introducing or maintaining superfluous structures which delay the decision-making process. The rapporteur is right to point out the need for funding this facility and the need for a well-trained unit for financial management and implementation. My group prefers the Commission text to the rapporteur’s amendments on a number of scores. For instance, I find the list of examples and goals in Article 1 (1), which is what the rapid reaction facility will serve to achieve, very useful. The report mentions the clear involvement of the European Parliament in the policy. Given the fragmented commitment of the Member States, also in the future, the report is right to call for a system of information exchange. Who knows whether more far-reaching coordination and guidance will be possible in the time to come. We learn from our knock-backs, albeit with some delay. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo are important examples where a great deal went wrong and, slowly but surely, we learnt from our mistakes. The rapid reaction facility is, as far as this is concerned, an enormous step forward. We hope, of course, that it will need to be deployed as little as possible, but that is wishful thinking. We know that in politics, it is useful to have this option up your sleeve, as a complement to the rapidly mobilised military unit which falls within the remit of Mr Solana. We think that in future, the European Union’s civil instruments will matter most in the sphere of maintaining law and order, and this is, of course, also what we want. For we too, like everyone else, would like to choose civil instruments over military instruments, but we need not press this point too much in this arena, given the large degree of hesitation whenever the need arises to deploy military instruments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as my group’s shadow rapporteur, I would nevertheless like further reassurance that this is only about deferring the vote, and that the agreements reached between the groups will be unaffected and will not again be rescinded. (Parliament decided to defer the vote) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0040/2004) by the Conference of Presidents, on the number, power and responsibilities of committees (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0003/2004) by Mr Piétrasanta, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the state of progress of the Galileo programme [COM(2002) 518 – 2003/2041(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0044/2004) on the Irish Presidency and the European Constitution (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0047/2004) on competition policy Paragraph 15

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Group supports the Commission’s efforts to implement the action plan for financial services. Obviously, in the wake of the introduction of the euro, we need to create an integrated European financial market which is similar to the American and Japanese markets. The debates on UCITS gave rise to speeches on behalf of all sorts of lobbies and heated debate in the relevant committee. I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Olle Schmidt, and also Mr García-Margallo y Marfil, for their constructive approach. The s recognise the importance of the investment fund industry to the development of our economies and to the allocation of resources. But the world of international finance is a dangerous one. The capital markets are still at the mercy of their excesses. There is at present a surfeit of cash looking for a home. In 1999, the increase in the means of payment in the world resulted in over-stimulated stock exchanges and an explosion in the volume of transactions, pushing up the prices of long-term financial and real assets. And as international financial activity speeds up, the risks increase. You do not need a Nobel prize in economics to realise that the current working hypothesis of the financial markets, which anticipate annual growth in profits of the order of 15 to 25% is quite simply unrealistic in the medium term. I adamantly believe that the main risk to the world economy in the foreseeable future is not inflation, but deflation generated as the speculative bubbles, created by what Alan pan calls irrationally exuberant markets, burst. The legislature has a duty to contain the risk inherent in the continuing deregulation of the European financial markets. By definition, investment funds use other people’s money. The legislator should protect the general interest and introduce safeguard clauses. There is no freedom without rules. We have done away with so-called master-feeder structures. These feeder funds exist in the United States, which is an area with a single supervisory authority and a single legal system. The European market is still fragmented and such structures would doubtless cause problems. The s, like the Commission, question the advisability of allowing investment funds to invest in so-called over-the-counter derivatives, i.e. products negotiated between professionals by private contract. As these transactions are generally not subject to prudential control, the risks are all the more obvious. The Group has tabled amendments proposing both quantitative and qualitative safeguard clauses in order to contain the risks to investors. By adopting these amendments, Parliament will allow recourse to OTC derivatives but will also limit the risk to private investors. Mr President, there is much talk at present of the principle of good governance. This principle should not only guide the public sector, it should also guide the private sector, especially financial undertakings. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, it would be totally wrong of us to have come here tonight to either criticise the report or the Commission for coming forward with the proposal. I should like to thank the rapporteur for his report. It is the first time we have had a constructive debate on the problems that face the pig industry throughout the European Union – certainly in the eleven years I have been in this Parliament. I am not saying it is right, I am not saying I agree with it, but at least it is the first time we have had a constructive debate on the subject. There is no doubt that pig farmers, regardless of where you come from, have faced the most difficult period possible. I have seen family farms go out of business; I have listened to farmers' wives wondering how they would survive because of the problems the industry was facing. The question I have to ask myself is very straightforward and simple: will this proposal help to alleviate their difficulty either in the short- or long-term? I have extremely serious reservations as to whether it can help the pig farmer in either the short term or long term. Co-financing is one aspect, but I have a horrible suspicion that would perhaps create an uneven playing field in many countries throughout the European Union. I have to ask the Commissioner – because this is the one thing that might be useful for some of us – whether this proposal will be mandatory on the Member States? If it is implemented in every Member State then there is a degree of fairness. If it is not implemented throughout every Member State, then there will be unfairness. There will be the suspicion that producers in another Member State have an unfair advantage. Can the Commissioner answer that? Whether I will vote for or against depends on how he answers that. Unfair competition must be avoided at all costs. Pigs have always had – as has been said by Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert – tremendous highs and lows in price. When the price has been high the producer has been doing well. When the price has been low then the family is not doing well. It is a question of balance. This is the problem in the pig industry at the moment. Is the Commissioner going to address the same problem in the poultry industry, in mushrooms, in tomatoes, in other industries that will have some particular difficulty at some stage in the future? That is what we have to ask ourselves: can the common agricultural policy really cope with the challenges it faces at the present time? While the policy is good, and while I pay tribute to it, we have to go back to the drawing board. We have to look at it again. We have to have further consultation and greater cooperation to find a way in which we can come forward with a proposal rather than asking the hard-pressed producers at the moment to pay for something that they cannot afford. Let us look at how we can best support the industry in the longer-term.

Political group: PPE-DE
On behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I would like to express our position on Mrs Avilés Perea’s report and explain why we decided to abstain. We believe that if a Parliamentary Committee decides to adopt an own-initiative report, the report should, on the one hand, be on a subject not tackled by other committees, and, on the other hand, be adopted as a result of a broad consensus within the same Committee. That was not the case with this report. Topics such as immigration and trafficking in human beings deserve to be investigated in more depth and should not be treated in such a cursory fashion. The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs will be investigating these issues in the near future on the basis of a Commission communication on immigration in the European Union. The subject of globalisation was not tackled, whereas it should have been at the centre of the report. Politically speaking, we are in favour of closer relations between the EU and countries bordering the Mediterranean. However, a concept such as Euro-Mediterranean citizenship, which has no legal basis, could lead to legal confusion. Our position does not mean that the problem of female migrants and their standard of living in the EU does not give us cause for concern. We should, however, have liked this problem to be approached in a different manner. - Gemelli report (A5-0059/2001)

Political group: ELDR
No scientific evaluation justifies research on embryonic stem cells and researchers have said that using these cells for therapeutic purposes has proved unsuccessful. Nevertheless, alternative methods, such as adult stem cells, offer very promising results. Two comments must be made on the argument, which enables this fundamental research on embryonic cells to include adult stem cells. First and foremost, existing cell lines are sufficient and this is the proposal by Mr Liese. Then, it ignores the fact that the purpose of adult stem cells is to repair tissue on the patients themselves, whilst the purpose of embryonic stem cells is to follow the development of the human being from conception onwards. The Commission proposal is ambiguous and inappropriate since scientists do not promise any results for 10 to 15 years and this research does not match the urgency of the needs of patients who are suffering while they wait for a treatment to be found. We need to prioritise funding for research into adult stem cells, the only alternative method which does not raise ethical issues and which is a technique that has been approved by all Members. I will not support the Commission proposal amended by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and I will vote in favour of the Gargani amendment, to which I also added my name.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union will change the political landscape. From May 2004, future members such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will share external borders with Belarus, a country contiguous with the European Union, one that is part of the legacy of the Soviet Union's collapse, and one that can, alas, be described, politically, economically and legally speaking, as a problem case lagging behind everyone else. We cannot regard with indifference the regression of a country, soon to be a neighbour to the European Union, into an authoritarian and dictatorial regime. Belarus is increasingly cutting itself off. We see this in the failure to extend the OSCE mission in Minsk. The Council of Europe refuses to let Belarus become a member. Thus, Belarus' isolation is increasing, and so the situation remains utterly unchanged. Parliament's attempt, by means of a report, at exerting some influence, is therefore to be welcomed, even if only because it sends out a signal to encourage the democratic opposition forces, which, although weak, are nonetheless still there, to show signs of life in the forthcoming local elections in March. Any country excluding itself in this way from European development cannot do other than become a security problem for the European Union. Because of the de facto lack of security on the border with its Russian neighbour, with which it has close economic and political ties, Belarus is a main transit country for illegal immigrants travelling from Russia to the EU. In terms of illegal immigration, it is to be regarded as more important as a transit country than as a country of origin. There is thus a clearly perceptible trend towards migration into Austria from the Indian subcontinent and Iraq by way of Belarus and the Ukraine. Over recent months, Minsk has created problems for flights to Austria. Increased numbers of illegal immigrants have been intercepted at Vienna's Schwechat airport, having travelled from Iraq and India and flown from Minsk. A structured dialogue – as soon as circumstances permit – is thus very much to be desired. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, water is a precious raw material. Millions of people do not even have clean water – a absolute necessity for survival – at their disposal. It should, therefore, not surprise us that water is the cause of wars. The capitalist world too sends out its pawns in order to gain maximum control over water reservoirs. General interest or solidarity often do not come into the equation. Europe is therefore facing an arduous task; that of combining a Community water policy which is fragmented in terms of objectives and means into more coherent framework legislation. I have to admit that in Flanders, where I come from, we still have a long way to go too. We were recently rapped on the knuckles by the Commission regarding this matter. Anyone with any sense would like to see this framework directive used as a big stick for those pursuing policies who are now failing in some way. The common position is in this respect a farce, a document with no strings attached and a true affront in the light of the OSPAR agreements. The period of implementation can even be extended up to 34 years. By then, my children will be older than I am now. You have to admit: this is a joke. Tomorrow, we might opt in favour of a weak and permissive framework which ruins the future of our children. Either we opt for the amendments of my group, of the rapporteur or the Committee on the Environment. I would like to finish off with this observation. In the past couple of months, we have witnessed a great deal of lobbying in Belgium. What was remarkable about this dossier was the enormous pressure from the Council of Ministers. In our own country, this pressure was exerted by both Flemish and Wallonian Environment administrations. They have opted for the weak common position in favour of our Parliament’s more drastic positioning. I really do wonder whether this is an approach of which the green Environment Ministers in my country are aware. Ladies and gentlemen, fine words are no longer sufficient. We need to change tack completely. During the vote tomorrow, we can make it clear that Europe is drafting a responsible and future-orientated water policy. This can only benefit our credibility.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, apart from the accidents in France and Hungary, we also had a terrible accident in Greece just after Easter, in which 21 pupils lost their lives in Tembi, between Thessaloniki and Larissa, while they were on a school trip in a coach. It was an incident which shook all of us in Greece, it was widely reported in Europe and, together with the other tragic accidents, has brought us to today's debate. There is, of course, the European Commission's ten-year programme, which we shall also be looking at and commenting on extensively within the framework of the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport, and there are other ideas which are already referred to in our motion. It has rightly been stressed that we must look immediately at the question of safety belts. It has also rightly been stressed that we must look at the question of coach specifications and I welcome the European Commission's position on this point. However, we must, of course, also look at the question of driving times, because often drivers cannot do their job properly because they are exhausted. The European Parliament has made a proposal here, which I hope the Council will deal with positively. I, for my part, want to comment on two individual issues. The first is the issue of speed limiters. I highlight this because I myself was rapporteur to the European Parliament. The legislation exists. And it is up to the governments to apply this specific legislation as quickly as possible. It has been proven that by limiting speed, especially in the case of large vehicles, we also limit the possibility of accidents and their consequences. The second thing I want to say, and this concerns the European Commission, has to do with the projects funded under the Community Support Framework. We will need to pay particular attention to road projects in order to avoid poor workmanship. I have the particularly sad experience of my own country, where new projects have very serious levels of poor workmanship, which is why they are dangerous and cannot always be used safely. Consequently, the quality of works needs to be strictly controlled by the European Commission. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President President. – The debate is closed.To end this debate, I have received one motion for a resolution(1) presented in accordance with Rule 42(5) of the Rules of Procedure.The vote will take place this afternoon.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, we too naturally support all the compromise and composite amendments jointly decided in the Committee on the Environment which, I trust, will be adopted by plenary. However, Mr President, I should like to highlight two points here. The subject which we are debating clearly illustrates just how superficial and empty our debate on the political unification of Europe is. This is no paradox. A real food safety agency will never get off the ground, unless of course it has strong political backing. Mr President, we are talking about legislation, initially about application, we are talking about responding to danger, about measures, policy changes and comparing imports – i.e. controlling the safety of products coming in from outside. My question is: who is going to do all this? The national authorities? But the crises which occurred in the past were generally covered up by the authorities in the Member State. Need I remind you of the United Kingdom's policy on BSE? What agency is going to be able to exercise controls, carry out investigations and propose measures on behalf of the whole of the European Union? I, to give a minor example, would love to know what the agency now being proposed would have done about the mad cow crisis in Britain, about the dioxin crisis in Belgium and about the genetically-modified cotton and foodstuffs, such as cotton seed oil, in Greece. Not much, I think. Unless this agency comes up to the standards which will give it political teeth, I do not think it will achieve much. The best case scenario is that it will work alongside the Environmental Agency, which does an excellent information job, but which freely admits that the environmental situation in Europe has not improved.

Political group: GUE-NGL