GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on seeing the stars on the European flag, I believe that some people have mistaken our forum and have come here to make narrow-minded statements. I am not going to get involved in that debate because this is a place for talking about Europe. And we have come here to discuss a programme that combines ambition with vision. I am therefore very pleased, Mr President, that we are dealing here with a six-month programme during which, as most Members have pointed out, much is going to be done and many initiatives are going to be taken. It is true that the tradition of Parliament is to demand that the Presidency-in-Office get things done. But I also believe that, in compensation for the many things that have been demanded today, this Parliament must make a commitment to doing something which seems to me extraordinarily important: the Barcelona process is going to be a key element of the Presidency. The Barcelona process is necessary in order to complete the process started in Lisbon and you have said, Mr President, that there is no better means of achieving social integration than creating employment. We must send a clear signal, at a time when the European economy is delicate, that the European Union is prepared to make this effort and, therefore, this Parliament and this political group commit ourselves to approving, next week in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, the report by Mr von Wogau so that we may implement the measures contained in the Lamfalussy report, which I believe will send a clear message to the markets that we are willing to reach an agreement – and I am glad that you are here, Mr Prodi, since the Commission has much to say on this issue – a fair agreement, which respects the balance of the institutions, to liberalise that market. From this point of view, the European Parliament will add to the good initiatives of a Presidency which has ambition and vision. Mr President, I believe I am the only speaker who has not used up his speaking time. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this afternoon, Commissioner Bolkestein presented here in Strasbourg his latest book on Europe's borders. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend this presentation, Commissioner, but I should like to congratulate you on it all the same. This evening, I should like to consider the limits to the Commissioner's urge for liberalisation, which appear to be non-existent. First of all, I should like to extend warm thanks to Mr Miller for the good working relationship. It is not his fault that the vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has produced a somewhat distorted report. As I understand it, Mr Harbour is taking on the blame for this. As rapporteur for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I am naturally very disappointed that only three of my amendments have been adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. My group has re-submitted the other amendments and we hope that the and Liberals will be supporting those tomorrow with their Socialist hats on. As far as the urge for liberalisation is concerned, I can put Mr Bolkestein's mind at rest. Unlike some of my colleagues here on the left, I am not by definition against liberalisation, but I am opposed to market fundamentalism and to pushing through liberalisation at all costs, if the conditions and public guarantees are not yet in place by a long way and liberalisation is loss-making on all fronts, except for the private monopolies and their adherents who can seize on their chances in this. It is high time that we in Europe put a brake on liberalisation of that kind and that a framework directive was put in place for services of general interest, thus providing a counterweight for the dominance of the competition rules. I can see the Commissioner hesitating in that respect, and he is palming us off with one excuse after the other. One final remark about the new directive on the internal market for services: that really seems to me to be a case of extreme madness, because it undermines everything that we have laid down in Europe in the area of subsidiarity and the precedence of the rules of the country where the services are performed. The new proposal for a directive is throwing the existing regulation into utter confusion and threatens drastically to restrict the Member States' policy room to determine conditions on the basis of general interest, monitoring the quality of society and the environment and guaranteeing fundamental rights. In my view, some elements are even inconsistent with the corresponding guiding principles in the Treaty. It is beyond me why you want to get this through Parliament before your departure, and I am pleased that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has in any case decided not to proceed too hastily in this matter. In the Miller report, my group urges that no final decisions should yet be taken, about this new directive among other things, until such time as the discussion about the legal framework for services of general interest is complete. This does not strike me as being unreasonable.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as one of the longest-serving Members in the House my memory goes back right to the first committee of inquiry into drugs in the Community on which I had the honour to serve. I also have memories of other Community institutions. We have happily set up over the years several semi-European institutions in different Member States. Some of them have matured and grown and become quite effective. But if they do not do that they become flaccid, rot and become totally useless – just another expensive quango, not actually achieving any great results. It is appropriate that at the moment we are assessing the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. We all too often have a tendency in Parliament, I am afraid, when we cannot to do anything more concrete, to set up another institution. That makes us feel good but does not actually change anything. So it is appropriate that we look at the work of this observatory in Lisbon at this stage. We should not kill it off until we are sure it is not being effective. But we have to accept that none of our countries are going to come up with a harmonised approach to dealing with the tragedy of increasing drug addiction and the murders, deaths and all that surrounds this dreadful trade. I take this opportunity to say to my dear colleagues from all parties in the Netherlands: your policies have tended to become like a honeypot for the criminal element in many of the accession countries. In the last month alone five young Irish drug dealers – and I admit they should not have been doing it – moved to the Netherlands because it was more comfortable for them to be there. They have all been quite horribly murdered by people coming from some of the accession states to the Community. So it is important that we include them in the work of this observatory. It is very important that we take a very serious look at the policies within Turkey, an accession state, in relation to the provision of drugs and to the criminal activities surrounding it. The observatory in Lisbon cannot work effectively without very close relationships with the Europol agency in The Hague. I would like to thank both the rapporteurs. They have done a good, serious job. They have asked very serious questions. The point was made that three years is far too long between assessments. I would like us to have another debate like this next year to really assess how effective the observatory is and how effectively it is using its very considerable budget in this work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this annual report on human rights policy draws attention to the increasing numbers of infringements that take place in the EU, and makes concrete proposals on how this situation might be resolved. The report raises many valid points, of which I should like to highlight the reference that it makes to the fact that many women are denied the right to abortion in the EU, as is currently the case in Portugal, where, indeed, they are still subject to criminal proceedings. I applaud the rapporteur when she calls on the Member States to guarantee access for all women, including young, poor and immigrant women, to safe and legal abortion, emergency contraception, affordable reproductive and sexual health services and sex education. I hope that the Portuguese Government – and the prevailing political climate in my country – will finally take this proposal on board. I should also like to highlight the way in which the report condemns all forms of violence against women and calls on Member States to combat and eliminate violence against women and children in Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Unlike my political group, I have voted in favour of the amendments to block 3. I thought it was vital to support Amendment No 1, as it introduces a reference to the precautionary principle. Even though I understand the rapporteur’s desire to bring this legislative procedure to a close after the second reading (and I would like to draw attention to his hard work and great receptiveness of mind), I am unable to vote against the reference to the precautionary principle. I believe this principle to be essential and necessary for a debate as sensitive, and as far from a resolution, as the one on genetically modified organisms. The Council has refused to incorporate this reference to the precautionary principle fully into its Common Position, mentioning it in the preamble. That is the Council’s decision and I respect it. I do feel, however, that the European Parliament should not assume the Council’s old stance against the reference to the precautionary principle. The principle is, in any case, covered by Community legislation. To reject it accords GMO a privileged status. It sets a precedent which other occupational sectors might exploit in order to challenge future political proposals and guidelines. It is a retreat via the negation of a principle, but it masquerades as progress all the same.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, colleagues who have argued this morning that this Charter does not reflect this or that right strongly enough or indeed at all, or say that it is not Christian Democratic enough or Socialist enough, or Green enough, seem to have missed the whole point of the Charter. This is a Charter that brings together rights that belong to no party and to every party. It is a fusion of existing European values in a contemporary and imaginative way. All sections of the House who are interested in the development of the European Union should welcome that. As the Commission says in its excellent communication, and as Mr Moscovici has reminded us this morning, this Charter is unique because it brings together civil, political, economic and social rights in a way that is not contained in any other human rights or fundamental rights charter that exists in the world. It is also, the Commission points out, contemporary because it deals with issues such as bioethics, genetic engineering and data protection as well as access to information. So it is a good step in the right direction. The convention and its chairman, Mr Méndez de Vigo should be congratulated for it. The big question that now divides us is what this Charter is for. For me it has three purposes. Firstly, to say to the citizens: Europe is not simply something that happens to you, it is a community that gives you rights, that gives you guarantees, that gives you protection in certain circumstances. Secondly, to say to the institutions: you have a duty, that is expressed in this Charter, to deal with the citizens in a certain way. When you pass legislation, when you take administrative actions, when you draw up documents, you have to abide by the contents of this Charter. Thirdly, it says to both existing Member States and to applicant states that when you become a member of the Community you become a member of a community of values. There are certain conditions that you must maintain and attain to be or to remain a member of the European Union. That is a very clear message, not just to the applicant states but to the existing states. If you think of the fragile political situation in one or two of our Member States, that is an important message to be setting out at this time. How will the Charter be used? I agree with colleagues who say the Court is not going to ignore a Charter that has been proclaimed solemnly by the three institutions: the Commission, the Council and Parliament. It is going to bear that Charter in mind when making judgments. That is to be welcomed, not feared as Mr Bonde seems to think. Mr Dupuis and even my own European minister have implied that this is a vacuous or empty document. I cannot accept this. This is a major step forward in the building of Europe. I welcome it. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Solana, it is with very great pleasure that I can welcome you here in your new role, and I am delighted that in a few days you will be combining this role with that of Secretary-General of the WEU. This all augurs well, and represents real progress. An equally good augury is given by the desire for mutual cooperation expressed by yourself and by Mr Patten, who has also just made some very rational statements. Let me address you in my capacity as rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, regarding security and defence policy. This means I have listened to you with the utmost concentration. In brief, today, permit me to stress the timetable or, to be more specific, the rate of the innovations and reforms which you are responsible for. The Kosovo crisis has made Europeans aware of the gaps in the political and military resources available to them. Furthermore, they have become more than ever aware of the risks they are running in letting a system continue which was designed at the time of the Cold War and which is no longer in any way suitable for the instances of instability which are proliferating around Europe and even within Europe. This increased awareness provides an opportunity for innovation, as the Cologne Summit showed. But I am afraid that this window of opportunity may close again all too soon under the pressure of national conservatism and budgetary constraints. This is why my view is that things must get done quickly, as quickly as possible. Institutional reforms still need careful consideration, of course. It would be a mistake to rush. The same goes for the fundamental question of the respective roles of Europe and the United States. The solutions are not yet fully mature, but there are certainly already some practical steps which can be taken quickly. For example, the enlargement of the General Affairs Council to include Defence Ministers, a formula which was already tested last Monday; setting up a permanent political body, “COPS”, responsible for monitoring all matters relating to common foreign and security policy, including defence; setting up a Military Committee; creating a rapid deployment task force of approximately 50,000 men, and so on and so forth. And I should take care not to forget the task which the Finnish Presidency, quite rightly, considered to be of great significance: improving our non-military security resources, particularly for preventive purposes. All this may be achieved quickly on the lines of the guidelines established by the Fifteen. I think the old adage of testing the ground by walking on it would be particularly wise in this case, Mr Solana.

Political group: PSE
As a Parliament we have passed a number of important motions on Indonesia, Timor and the Moluccas. When we talk of Indonesia, we are talking of an empire in which, under dictatorship, whole sections of the population were forcibly transported to other parts of the empire, the transmigration. That still underlies many complex conflicts. At the same time the transition from dictatorship to democracy is an enormous step. Since 1999 there has been some democratisation, but that is proceeding terribly slowly: on the one hand attempts are being made to strengthen democracy, on the other hand fierce ethnic conflicts are raging in many areas. The Jihad, which was previously active in the Moluccas, is now operating in Sulawesi. And every time one sees that the army has difficulty in really detaching itself and accepting the rule of law and democracy. This is clear in Papua. The island is still further from the capital and although legislation on autonomy is in prospect, as well as a special court for investigating certain events, it is still clear how much effort it requires to take this step. Therefore we must strongly condemn the murder committed and do all we can to facilitate that process of reconciliation. The same applies to Sulawesi. Let us therefore distance ourselves completely from the terrorists, the Jihad, and at the same time support the Indonesian authorities. The fact is that the vast majority of the population want reconciliation, want to live and build a society together. Ordinary citizens, whether Christian or Muslim, are not interested in the Jihad. For this reason, given all our experience, and with due modesty, we have an important part to play there. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Jonckheer for his excellent work and I think the directive, as it was approved in the committee, is very good. In my opinion, it is a good and positive sign that an attempt is being made to harmonise the environmental point of view with healthy competition in the energy markets. Common minimal levels of energy taxation are needed and the polluter pays principle is important, as long as we remember to give attention to the effects on competition and employment. Furthermore, emissions trading, which is beginning to be implemented, is an important means of regulation, and we can therefore also avoid regulation overlapping with it, as would be the case with taxation of energy products and the various exemptions proposed thereto. In the matter of energy taxation, in general renewable natural resources should be treated favourably, and in the same way there should be tax relief on new fuels that are particularly environmentally friendly. In this way we can use financial incentives to steer both consumers and industry in the direction of environmentally friendly energy use. The Commission proposal on tax incentives with regard to certain biofuels is worthy of our firm support. Although this directive does not directly deal with hydrogen, for example, it is a good, and will in the future be, an important energy source that in time could clearly replace oil for transport in particular. It is obviously worth supporting hydrogen in matters of taxation. We have to remember, however, that any form of taxation that deviates from neutral taxation has an impact on market activity and for that reason any such support measures as these should be temporary and exceptional in nature, in order to promote new fuels and production methods. The troubled aviation industry has enjoyed tax exemptions on air fuel for a long time. Taxation in this area is a problematic issue because aircraft can choose fairly freely where to refuel. If a tax were imposed on air fuel within the EU but not outside it, this would lead to refuelling outside the Union. That is why the international agreement on the tax-exempt status of air fuels should be respected. The Member States have a right they must not lose to decide themselves on taxes on fuels for local use. These fuels, such as peat, for example, which is important in my country, are of no importance to a viable internal market, but at local level they may well be very important and necessary sources of energy and employment. In Finland and the other Nordic countries taxes on energy are already widely applied, so these countries would have no problem with even shorter periods of transition. I, however, have yielded to the will of the majority in my group. My group is not in favour of a shorter timescale, as Mr Jonckheer has proposed. In other words, I personally would have been prepared to go further in this.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am sure Mr Solana will agree with me when I say that the current goals of those of us who have a greater or lesser responsibility with regard to the process of European integration far outweigh the most optimistic ambitions of the European leaders at the time, for example, when you presided over the General Affairs Council of the European Community. And within this framework you have taken on the important task of personifying the joint effort to put in place a foreign and security policy which concerns us all. As you reminded us the other day in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, you are at the other end of that telephone which Kissinger spoke of. And please be assured that, in your task, you can count on the stimulus and support of this House and my group in particular. I am convinced that you will not disappoint us. Since I am confident that you will make every effort to ensure that our foreign policy will respond to balanced criteria, which will, without doubt, confirm that you give priority to the political and economic convergence of all those countries which, like Spain, almost 25 years ago, are moving from an autocratic regime to a liberal regime and that you will ensure that peace will always reign on European soil. I am also sure that you will guarantee our prominent role throughout the Mediterranean region, another priority both in economic and in security terms, and that we will effectively safeguard our interests in Latin America, for example by ensuring compliance with the commitment made with the United States Government with regard to the application of the Helms-Burton law. I am surprised that Mr Solana did not mention it this morning, although I have no doubt whatsoever concerning his convictions in that regard. In any event, we wish him every success in his work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is universally known that human rights are being violated in Nepal. This resolution rightly condemns all acts of violence, those perpetrated by the security forces, but also those by the Maoist rebels. It rightly presses for mediation and political consultation. However, it rightly asks for the underlying causes of the conflict to be addressed, that is, abject poverty, social inequality and marginalised population groups. In August, the European Commission provided EUR 615 000 for a peaceful solution to the conflict. Against this background, it is unwise to supply murder weapons to Nepal. It is also a clear violation of the code of conduct regarding the export of weapons. The Flemish clearly state that the conditions for supply are not fulfilled and our party will continue to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Belgian Parliament whether it is still possible to suspend the planned supply of weapons. In this sense, this resolution is a more than obvious sign to Mr Michel of a poor, incoherent document. The Nepalese need ploughshares, not weapons, Mr Michel. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE