GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, Stockholm has highlighted at least three subjects on which I should like to comment this morning. Regarding progress and the conditions for economic growth in Europe, I think that important signals have been given. This morning I have heard some people criticising the halt that has been called on certain forms of liberalisation. I believe that if we look at the situation with regard to Ericsson in Sweden and Marks [amp] Spencer or Danone in France, it is time to start asking questions about the cost of the growth that we are in the process of creating. Mr President of the Commission, I have listened to your appeal that Europe should keep its promises, but it cannot do this if it shows the door to thousands of workers. In that respect, Mr President of the Council, when you call for a balance between liberalisation and social responsibility, it seems to us that you are in agreement with the real concerns of our fellow citizens. From this point of view, I believe, and this will be my second point, that any progress that can be made in restructuring our services of general interest is essential. There is this draft framework directive. We are waiting for it to progress further, because unless it does, what is the point of defining this draft framework when we have already liberalised every sector? We are already well behind schedule: it is time to act and to restructure these sectors. My second point is method. Many people have already said this before me: Lisbon marked a certain stage, and Stockholm makes it official. It seems to us essential that the conclusions that you adopted regarding better coordination between the Luxembourg process, the social agenda, the Lisbon process and the broad guidelines of economic policy should enable this spring Council to rediscover, or discover, its true role, that of defining policy on the basis of the preparatory work carried out by the Commission, which enables everybody to play their part, the Commission in its role as instigator, and the European Council in its role as policy maker. Because if everyone wants to do everything, though one sometimes has the impression that it is less painful, very often it is also less effective. Then again, in using these methods, it seems to us that, if we want to take into consideration this social responsibility that you have talked about, Mr President, we shall also have to modify our indicators. We are not entirely clear about these social situations. Admittedly, we have made some progress since Luxembourg, but what do we really know about the way added value is distributed? What do we know about how employees are defined in terms of their mobility? What do we know about ways of opposing these job cuts, which were supposed to be merely economic job cuts, and which are becoming financial job cuts? This is certainly not the Europe that we want to have.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is with joy and great pleasure that I would like to award you the order of merit of the dissident thinkers’ club of which I have been the president for some years. (Laughter) Finally, thanks to your politically incorrect intervention – as shown by the reactions of some of those on the right – I felt we might actually be able to hold a real debate on the economic, social and environmental governance of Europe. Furthermore, Mr Herzog is right to say that the Commission’s responsibility for this very economic, social and environmental governance of Europe must be anchored in the Convention. Let us stop being so hypocritical! When governments get into debt by taking the wrong decisions, we must tell them they have taken the wrong decisions. When France is incapable of reforming its agriculture sector, following the Commission proposals for agricultural reform, we must say so. When Europe, or Member States, take the wrong decisions on energy, we must say so. There is, however, one thing we must put an end to if we want to avoid a situation where the citizens reject our Europe – which, let it be said in passing, has once again scraped a victory in Ireland – reforms cannot operate solely on the basis of the proposals of banks and employers, without considering those who, either now or in future, have to live with them. These reforms must be socially, environmentally and economically equitable throughout society. That is exactly what is meant by saying that this Pact is stupid. Let us take the example of Germany, Mr Poettering. Your great candidate has called for Mr Prodi to resign. On behalf of whom or what would Mr Stoiber call for Mr Prodi to resign? Why did you not have the courage to repeat, here, in this House, in front of Mr Prodi, what your candidate said? I would have liked to hear you repeat the same thing. We could have laughed about it together. Secondly, I would like to know whether a country like Germany, which spent 600 billion in transfers from West to East for the unification, should be treated in the same way as any other country, be it small or large? Should the fact of having carried out these transfers, of paying pensions to people who have never contributed to the pension scheme, be taken into account, yes or no? Let us stop being hypocritical and, finally, let us thank Mr Prodi for having opened the debate. Let us continue! The dissident thinkers’ club will relaunch this debate in an even less stupid way than Mr Prodi. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, allow me to start by congratulating our rapporteur, Mr Marinho. I think that his analysis is extremely accurate and shows us how we really can make headway in combating the laundering of what we call ‘black’ or ‘dirty’ money. I would remind the House that we aim to use this policy to fight organised crime, i.e. drug smuggling, trafficking in women and children and many other wretched activities which have a terrible impact on society as a whole, even – and I say this somewhat cynically – the economy itself, in that it is generally acknowledged that this money increases the money supply and often destabilises monetary policy. The rapporteur is quite right in saying – and I too should like to say – that, having opened our borders, albeit for other reasons, to organised criminals, we must also open our borders to the bodies – i.e. the police and the courts – responsible for pursuing them. And, of course, we must do so on the basis of a common definition of what crime is and of what methods it uses, so that it cannot flee from one country to another, at least not for purely procedural reasons. The way forward, as Mr Marinho says – and I agree with him – is communitisation. Obviously, because that takes us the way of parliamentary and democratic control. However, there are still a great many issues outstanding, even if we accept everything that has been said so far. There are many serious issues outstanding. What I mean is this: there are countries today in the European Union which tolerate or even take advantage of strange situations, offshore companies, strange banking regulations and other such things and they do not inspire me personally with any confidence that what we agree will be implemented. Political unification, political control may be what we need to resolve these questions and, by extension, the reviews and harmonisation of the laws governing these issues. These are issues which require institutional changes which, unfortunately, not even Nice will make.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Manders, and also Mr Papayannakis, on their work. Adopting a directive on environmental liability would be of enormous value. It would give credibility to environmental legislators, increase protection of the citizens and would send a clear message to economic operators that polluting does not pay. I therefore welcomed the proposal for a directive with great expectations, but although it is a step in the right direction, I believe it falls short of what is needed. Furthermore, in seeking to resolve any legal ambiguity, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has ended up further weakening the environmental objectives. Consequently, with regard to the directive’s scope, I would first of all admit that the issue of damage to biodiversity must be clarified but the solution does not lie, in my opinion, in excluding it from the directive. The loss of biodiversity in the European Union is a reality and the commitments given in Johannesburg and Gothenburg must be honoured. Secondly, I believe that, in addition to the damage to the ecological and chemical makeup of water, the directive should also cover damage to its volume, as laid down in the framework directive on water. Thirdly, I feel it is unacceptable for oil pollution in maritime transport and radioactive pollution caused by nuclear reactors to be excluded from the directive’s scope. These activities are amongst the most damaging to the environment and international instruments do not properly address the prevention and remedying of the damage these activities cause. Lastly, Mr President, I call for the directive to contain clearer provisions on making insurance compulsory, particularly for operators in more dangerous activities, in order to prevent taxpayers having to pay for damage in the event that companies become insolvent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, two years after the Lisbon Summit, the most optimistic and most willing Europeans recall the announcement of a new paradigm: to make the European Union the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world and achieve greater social cohesion. This strategy, which was finalised at Gothenburg, is becoming a strategy for sustainable development in the environmental and social spheres. We wanted to believe this, we would like to believe this, we still want to believe this, but, in reality, the integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions is still merely an illusion. The Spanish Presidency, however, is not pretending. It is working with great honesty. It perceives the Union’s sustainable development to be the efficiency of markets, goods, services, capital and employment. Can we pretend to believe this? They want to sell us the accelerated liberalisation of the markets, transport, electricity and gas, although they know that this will result in our being less capable of supplying services to combat poverty, to provide social protection; it will bring about less territorial cohesion and fewer high-quality jobs, as all the studies have shown. We are providing flexibility in the employment market and the mobility of employees instead of a real job creation policy. Mr Bullmann’s report is trying to achieve the impossible. He would like to have his cake and eat it. He wants the commitments of the Stability and Growth Pact to be fulfilled and to see investment in education, research, the environment and networks. He wants high-quality employment and flexibility in the market. There is no doubt, in our view, that the real priorities of the Barcelona Summit are the development of the social economy based on solidarity, an independent income, including for young people who are slipping further into poverty, a real definition of services of general interest, a reduction in working time, investment in the environment and lifestyle. These, in our opinion, are the priorities of the Barcelona Summit.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we support the motion for a resolution, but we find it all very optimistic and hard to believe. Did the August agreement really ensure that the multi-ethnic society and the single rule of law were in fact maintained? We say and we hope that it did. But the only evidence we have at the moment is that weapons are being collected and the National Liberation Army has been disbanded. However, we do know that determining in advance how many weapons would be handed in was hardly conducive to being taken seriously. How were the numbers calculated? Just as we also know that it is the easiest thing in the world for a resistance movement to say that it is disbanding and then to regroup without further ado. That is why we share the incredulity, the degree of difficulty which the Slav Macedonians appear to be having in making further progress. We hope they will make progress. We want to remain optimistic, but the only serious argument for being optimistic and supporting the line taken in the motion would be, first, a stable political line, not double and triple messages coming out of the European Union and ΝΑΤΟ, as has happened in the past, with catastrophic results at political level; secondly, real, generous financial assistance – and soon – and, thirdly, to give European prospects to all the Balkan states at long last, and to this particular country as quickly as possible, so that there is a way out of the crisis, hope and prospects.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, first of all I apologise for being breathless. The brevity of colleagues today has brought this debate forward slightly to the point where I was not quite expecting to be called to speak so early. Nevertheless, perhaps we can finish before the dinner break. I congratulate Mr Goodwill, who has written a good report and taken on board many of the comments and remarks made by colleagues. We are moving towards a document which will carry to the Council many of the points that we have raised and will be a sound basis for further work in the next Parliament. As a Geordie to a Yorkshire man, I have to say, 'Th'as done good, lad'. That being said, there are still a number of issues that need to be resolved. I hope we can get unity in this House for the change of legal base to a double legal base. It makes sense. In many respects this directive has two purposes, both to regulate the industrial market and also to protect the environment. We are trying to protect the environment, to remove from use, gradually and steadily, fluorinated gases, or Fgases as they are called. Useful though they have been to replace CFCs, HFCs themselves present problems, particularly with their global warming potential, and we have a responsibility to gradually reduce their use, but in a way that is logical, not too expensive, and where there are proven and viable alternatives. Our biggest step forward and our biggest technological push is unquestionably the replacement of HFCs in car air conditioning systems. These systems are produced in their millions, their leakability is notorious – I know of colleagues at home who have had to have their air conditioning systems refilled two, three or four times. I do not accept that the solution is simply to reduce the number of leaks. The solution is to move to a different kind of gas that does not present the problems that HFCs clearly do in that sector. As regards uses in other areas, there are some key and essential uses and we want to examine them carefully before we move forward with an amendment that originated with me – Amendment No 89 – which asks for an orderly phase-out over a period of time after this directive is brought into force. I hope the Commission can agree to that amendment. It gives it flexibility and a task to perform, but in a steady, logical way for which it will no doubt come back to this House for approval. We will not immediately be looking to remove HFCs from fire-fighting uses, where they are clearly very useful and the alternatives are, in my opinion, not yet proven. We will not want to remove the ban from refrigerators, where there are certain medical uses which are essential. The motto with this proposal is 'forward, but with a degree of prudence'.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the question we are debating this morning is an important one. Hence, the regret and even anger I immediately feel at seeing Parliament consulted too late, and therefore too briefly, about an issue that is, however, vital to our fellow Europeans. We are indeed concerned with the period 2003-2005 which, as may be seen, has already largely begun. My second regret, which also amounts to clear, firm disagreement, relates to the liberal philosophy underlying the report. The European Commission’s proposal and the report, are again based upon a justification of the Stability and Growth Pact, a fact which goes on to lay the foundations for almost all the proposals put before us. As many of my fellow MEPs have said, this is a step that is, at one and the same time, outmoded and retrograde. When growth is seen to have declined considerably and sharp increases in employment are again seen everywhere, there is nothing for it but to be in favour of revising the Stability and Growth Pact. If growth is to be stimulated and jobs created, we must, as Europeans, give ourselves room for manoeuvre in our public finances in order to increase public and private investment, to stimulate research and development and to take account of the social dimension as a positive factor, rather than the restraining one that the liberals maintain it is. In the guidelines proposed to us, there is therefore, at one and the same time, an evident lack of political ambition and a dramatic inversion of political priorities, whereby employment becomes what I shall call a variable used to make adjustments to finances, the economy and the stock exchange and which leads to a proliferation of company restructurings whose only purpose is to increase financial profits. That is why, this morning, I would state my overall disagreement with the spirit, the principles and the poverty of the proposals being put before us. We shall therefore, of course, vote in favour of the amendments aimed at improving them, but we shall continue to fight for a Europe in which citizenship and the social dimension count for more. Since I still have a few seconds left, I should like to conclude with a final word in the form of a question to those of our fellow MEPs who, this morning, have had some very harsh words to say about employees who defend their pensions, and I would ask them if they themselves are prepared to sacrifice their parliamentary pensions. In the light of my experience, allow me to say, Madam President, that I think they are probably not so prepared.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have a question about the method applied here. It seems to me that, normally, when the sitting resumes and we resume the vote after a formal sitting, a bell sounds to warn our colleagues that the sitting and the vote are resuming. I did not hear that bell and I would ask you to confirm the method used in such cases, for this probably adversely affected the result of the vote in this Chamber.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, 'Egypt: where everyone wears a smile' is the slogan advertising Egypt to the world. There are no smiles on the faces of the gay men and boys of Egypt who have been harassed and their homes raided, and who have been entrapped via the Internet on trumped-up charges. There is no smile on the face of Wissam Abyad, in prison and badly treated since January, after just one meeting. There is no smile on the face of Zaki 'Abd al-Malak. There is no smile on the faces of the 21 Egyptians from the infamous 'Queen's Boat' discotheque trial, whose sentences have been increased on appeal to three years' imprisonment and forced labour. There is no smile on the faces of those anti-war demonstrators who were arrested on 20 March in Cairo and reportedly tortured. There is no smile, as we have heard, on the members of Coptic Church in Egypt persecuted for their faith. Egypt has contributed so much to our civilisation, we must urge it now to follow a civilised path on these issues. You do not have to agree with other people's beliefs, their political opinions, and their sexual preferences. You do, if you believe in the fundamental principles of democracy, have to defend their right to believe, their right to hold opinions, their right to choose their personal lifestyles. Those are the principles this Parliament must uphold.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, taking the floor for the last time before this House, which I will be leaving in a few weeks’ time, I would like to address a few words to my fellow Members. Of course the problems of the method adopted in the follow-up to Nice are important: the Community method, the Convention method, and so on. What is even more important, however, is that there is a plan and a driving force to push it forward. Each time the European Union – and the Economic Community before it – made progress, there was this plan and this driving force: the Spaak committees before the Treaty of Rome, the White Paper produced by Lord Cockfield before the Luxembourg Treaty, the strong proposals made by the Commission and the strength of the France-Germany axis with the Treaty of Maastricht. We know that, in the chancelleries, there is no plan and even less political will to move forward. We also know that, despite the very interesting proposals made by Commissioner Barnier, the Commission has neither the strength nor the authority it had ten years ago. So there remains the European Parliament. Over the years it has proved itself to be the strongest link in the institutional tripod. I would like to turn to my fellow Members and say that the European Parliament has a majority which transcends political and national divisions. This majority is in favour of a plan for a new European federalism. We need a federation of projects and a catalysis of energies to take this step forward as is expected of us and which the citizens of Europe expect from you. So, comrades, friends, fellow Members, I would like to take my leave of you by saying that I truly expect you to be ambitious and audacious. That is what the citizens expect from you. Thank you. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to protest about Mr Brok's intervention. He referred to the substance. There is no further debate today. What he said confirms precisely our position: that an attempt is being made to legalise the intervention in Iraq and the occupation and we are radically against any such development ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: GUE-NGL
In yesterday’s debate in the European Parliament some Members of this Parliament expressed worry that we were interfering in the internal affairs of a Member State. Such a concern is misplaced. The European Parliament has never been slow to comment on developments in Member States with which they disagree. We have condemned Basque and Irish terrorism. We have opposed racism and the infringement of the rights of minorities. It is our responsibility as a parliament, particularly as the democratically elected voice of the European Union, to comment on current political developments in Austria which are in conflict with the policies of this parliament. By commenting and making our views known we are not preventing any party in Austria from forming a coalition government. We are nonetheless, as is our right as well as our responsibility, telling them that if they go ahead then there are consequences arising from such a decision and in fact we are warning them beforehand. Others would argue that we should suspend judgement until we see the detail of such an agreement. Such a view is not only a political cop-out, it is positively dangerous. In reaching an agreement with Jörg Haider and his party, the Austrian would at a stroke be confirming political respectability on right wing extremism and also giving them access to power – both of which they will utilise as a launching pad for even greater electoral success. That is why the European Union must make its position clear regarding the current situation in Austria.

Political group: PPE-DE