GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I endorse the readings and proposals of our two rapporteurs. As they themselves said, there are negative points and there are obstacles which we shall find in our path towards unification and which we shall have to overcome in order to cast an informed vote. One of these is the reform process. It is impossible for half the Treaty, 150 articles in part three, to have a non-revisable status, because that is where we shall end up with the provisions which we are planning; in other words, policies will be regime. That is impossible. It goes against every political development of Europe in every direction. Secondly, we cannot proceed with the budget as it is being configured today. We are making a clownish trick here of what we teach our first-year economics students. How can we have a budget which says, ‘here is your money, now decide what policies you are going to introduce’, instead of saying what policies we want and then seeing what budget will serve them? Third point: the Convention itself did not accept nor, I imagine, will the Intergovernmental Conference proceed with the concept of the Ministers for Finance. Where is the cohesion of the eurozone, the symmetry between economic and monetary policy, to come from? Where will the real hard core of the European Union come from, if not from here? I think that it is a huge mistake and we shall find that too in our path. The same applies to the timidity on issues of security and defence. My honourable friend Mr Cossutta said as much, I shall not repeat him. Allow me to comment on one last issue, the reference to religions. I fail to understand which religions they wish to cite as being of value. Or why we need to refer to what is indeed the important history of Christianity but not, for example, to the history of free thinking? Or even of anti-clericalism, which inspired the Enlightenment, which inspired revolutions and intellectuals and policies in Europe. Or why we should not refer to the big names? For me, the face of Europe is Aristotle, it is Erasmus, it is Mozart, it is Marx, it is Freud. Are we going to impose them on our citizens? Let us allow our citizens a pluralistic choice for their future lives and careers. Perhaps this pluralism will be the real face of Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, although we do not yet know the full story of the police violence inflicted on the anti-globalisation protestors at the recent G8 summit in Genoa, there is enough evidence to suggest that the death of the young protestor Carlo Giuliani was not just caused by a police blunder. Similarly, the methods used by the Italian authorities do not seem to be just the result of the police being unable to cope with the rioting, which we of course condemn. After all, the private Italian network Sette broadcast scenes of people dressed like Black Blocks calmly chatting with the anti-riot police and then going away. Even if it does not suit those who have a narrow conception of the sovereignty of states, we must make it clear that the events of Genoa do not come only under the heading of Italy’s domestic affairs but directly concern the European institutions, and chiefly among them the European Parliament because it is directly elected. First of all, Europe is concerned because the Union must not simply be a stepping stone of liberal globalisation, but also an area of freedom in which the citizens have the rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights and, more recently, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, when citizens of all nationalities come together to exercise their collective freedom, their freedom of opinion and their right to demonstrate, it is the duty of the European Community to guarantee that they can effectively exercise these rights. Secondly, Europe must not remain inert in face of such disturbing manipulative operations. Europe cannot allow a government in its midst to use methods that are so incompatible with the values of democracy and freedom in which it believes. Lastly, as responsible democrats we cannot allow the violent actions of a minority of activists to be lumped together with the pacifist beliefs of thousands of people protesting against liberal globalisation, for the Union must, in its turn, become the motive force of democratic globalisation based on solidarity. I deplore the rejection of the proposal to table a European Parliament resolution on the subject. I would have liked to see a committee of inquiry set up. Like some of my comrades and other colleagues, I will play an active part in the monitoring group referred to by Francis Wurtz and we will carefully examine the conclusions of the Italian committee of inquiry.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Financial Regulation currently under discussion is likely to apply for many years to come. It is therefore crucial that its provisions for implementation are as clear as possible. The new Financial Regulation should not only lead to efficient handling but also better supervision than was previously the case. When supervision and operation are handed over to the various directorates-general, they must be monitored effectively. It is therefore vital that the accounting officer has a strong and independent position. We have proposed an amendment in this vein. The accounting officer must be able to demand and receive more information, stop payments in cases of doubt and report directly to the highest level. With this in mind, we would also like to express our regret that Parliament has not taken this opportunity to investigate the confusion in this area which has existed for years. This should have been carried out by summoning Mrs Andreasen to appear before the Committee on Budgetary Control. The fact is that we have still not received full answers on the approval of the Commission’s accounts for 2001. My political group has also proposed an amendment limiting the Commission’s ability to write off and write down liabilities. There must be clear grounds for writing off liabilities so that we do not see more cases like the Flechard case, where the person responsible for a serious error is not forced to accept the full consequences of their action. This explains our second amendment. Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I believe that the rapporteurs have done sterling work and the fruits of their labour, which we submitted under their guidance to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, are a coherent whole with a clearly defined objective. Mr Swoboda referred to this a moment ago: a vigorous railway sector within an internal market, which can be effective for the entire Union. The objective also sends a clear message to the Council, namely that Parliament wants to go further than the Commission. I do not really share Mr Watts’ view. In my opinion, we need to go further than the Council stated in its common position. We must now set the scene for full liberalisation in the medium term, and the step we are now taking is the first step in this process. This step is also the step currently proposed by the Council. We must also take the next steps, namely implement full liberalisation with regard to the transport of goods by 2005 and take the same step for the transport of passengers nationally and internationally in the longer term, this time by 2010, a deadline which is ten years away. There are a number of points which are vital in this context, and I hope that a sufficient number of MEPs will be able to support those opinions tomorrow. First of all, it is vital that infrastructure and the provision of services be divided. After all, no one can be on both sides of the fence at the same time. Secondly, who can apply for a licence? Not only railway undertakings, others too should be able to do this. I cannot see why, Mr Swoboda, this should be postponed until 2010. In my opinion, we should be able to bring this date forward to 2005. I should now like to comment on Article 12, which, I believe, is redundant, and a European licence should be subject to European requirements. That is not to say that consumers, railway workers’ social rights or safety are deemed immaterial. In fact, safety should come first. European requirements should apply because a European railway system requires regulations at European level rather than additional regulations at national level, because the latter would enable Member States to carry out certain activities which they no longer have to do within a European market. If we pursue this line of attack, railway undertakings will need to put their customers and passengers first, rather than act out of self-interest. I would like to add a brief, technical comment. Amendment No 23 has been declared inadmissible by the services. I would dispute this on the basis of Rule 80, paragraph 2 (b), and Rule 80, paragraph 3, of our Rules of Procedure. I would invite the services to reconsider their view, because my amendment is also related to Amendment No 24 regarding Article 12, which was declared admissible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the , I would like to express my opinion on the single market for supplementary pensions. Firstly, I would like to express my agreement with the model based on the intergenerational solidarity of the basic state systems, to which are added the supplementary capitalisation systems. On the other hand, I would also like to express my agreement with what Mr Kuckelkorn says in relation to the correlation established between pension systems which cover biometric risks. We are not talking about systems for financial investment but about pension plans. On the other hand, we are also in agreement with the participation of workers and the urgent harmonisation of the tax provisions. Nevertheless, we have to clarify the basic concept of pensions in a way which includes the supplementary pension schemes which cover biometric risks. It is necessary to clarify, on the other hand, that the single system applies to every type of worker in the European Union; there are not only workers who work for themselves in the European Union but also many cooperative workers, fortunately. We must opt for collective systems, but not only company systems – something which is mentioned in the report – but also sectoral ones, taking particular account of SMBs, which have been mentioned by Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel. We must take account of the great difficulties which exist within the Union with regard to the development of supplementary systems. We therefore understand and support the regulatory and supervisory systems for the protection of the rights of participants, but we must put the emphasis on the areas where systems are still underdeveloped, in aspects such as providing information or implementing new plans. Finally, I would like to underline our support for the creation of a European pension fund with the participation of the different economic sectors and the pension providers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am making this statement on behalf of the CSU. It is intolerable that the EU should involve itself in the formation of the government in a Member State. It has no right to do so. Instead of prematurely condemning the FPÖ and the Austrian Government which is being formed, there should first be a critical examination and assessment of the governmental declaration and the party programme and policies of the coalition. Only after such critical appraisal of the future policies of the parties involved in the coalition discussions can a decision be made as to whether this government is contrary to the democratic spirit of Europe. This does not mean that we sympathise with Haider. The CSU European delegates have no sympathy whatsoever with the leader of the FPÖ. However, as politicians we must ask the question why 27% of the Austrian population voted for a party such as the FPÖ at the elections in October 1999. We must concern ourselves with the reasons for this and try to deal with the reasons behind such results. Only by tackling the arguments and policies of the FPÖ can we prevent a radicalisation of Austrian politics. However, the resolution of the European Parliament does not question the reasons for the outcome of the Austrian vote and offers no options for resolving the problem. For these reasons the CSU European delegates are against this resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the discrepancy between words and deeds to be a fundamental problem running right through this whole debate. Let me give a few examples of what I mean. The Barcelona Summit decided on a study of what are termed the Basle II effects on small and medium-sized enterprises and banks. To date, it has not been completed. I take the view that if any study is completed only after the Basle Committee has produced its resolution and after the Commission has decided on a draft directive, it amounts to the squandering of money, to a betrayal of trust and to treating with disdain the resolutions of Parliament and of the Council. No sooner do we decide on the Stability and Growth Pact, than people question it – some because of Lisbon, some because of the war in Iraq, and others because they lack the courage to reform or because it threatens their comfortable positions. Rather than ignoring resolutions, we should be implementing them and taking them seriously! The Lisbon Council resolved unanimously to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and knowledge-based continent, a continent fostering social cohesion, promoting sustainability and creating new jobs. Where is the actual timetable? Where are the detailed objectives? Where is the road map? Where are the specific and verifiable programmes in all the Member States? Good and ambitious objectives need to be followed up by concrete action, or else we lose credibility. Let me now turn to Iraq. We are working towards a common foreign, security and defence Policy, but when it comes to the crunch, each does his own thing. We want to strengthen the UN, but not even the EU's two permanent members of the Security Council are making any effort to find a common approach. As President Prodi has shown us, we make demands of the Convention, yet we fail to comply with our own codes of conduct. We have a chance; it is called ‘more Europe’. It is also called ‘more United Nations’. We will find our opportunity if we stop setting national interests against European objectives, what nations do against what Europe resolves, the trans-Atlantic alliance against a self-confident and enlarged European Union. Let us follow up the summits with the necessary actions, and let us punish with sanctions any breaches of the Treaties for political reasons. Those who do not take themselves seriously will not be taken seriously by others, and a more serious approach to things will be worth our while.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner and congratulate Mrs Miguélez Ramos on her first-class report. Mrs Miguélez Ramos is, as you know, the senior vice-chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and is one of the most dedicated and hard-working members of that committee. Indeed I think it can be said that all the Spanish members of the fisheries committee are dedicated and hardworking; this is perhaps not surprising because the fishing industry is of such key importance to Spain, and the subject of this report is of such importance to the Spanish fleet in particular that this report was very appropriately awarded to Mrs Miguélez Ramos. I think it is worth noting that the Spanish fleet has a historic tradition of distant water fishing. For over a thousand years Spanish fishermen have been fishing off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, hundreds of years before Christopher Columbus was alleged to have discovered America, and it is this distant water fleet that we now regard as an important contribution to the overall fisheries strategy within the Community. In our debate this morning many speakers noted how important the aquaculture industry has become in meeting consumer demand for fish products against a background of collapsing fish stocks within our own EU waters. The involvement of European fishermen in international fisheries is of equal importance. The Community is only around 60% self–sufficient in fish and yet there is a rising demand for fish products in the wake of BSE and foot–and–mouth disease, and a gradual shift in consumer preference away from red meat. If we are to satisfy this consumer demand and endeavour to maintain as many jobs as possible in the fisheries sector, then the role of the international fisheries is of paramount importance. Mrs Miguélez Ramos has adequately demonstrated in her report, and said again in her introductory remarks, that for every euro we invest as a Community in this fishery we get 3 euros back in business terms. So it is not only a good way of maintaining jobs in the sector, it is a good, profitable business for the Community economy. I also think it is worth saying here that agreements with countries outside the EU (third–country agreements) have attracted a bad press in the past and in some cases that bad press may have been merited. However, it is for this very reason that Mrs Miguélez Ramos calls in her report for better inspection, better monitoring and better policing of the international fisheries, and in particular for increased action against illegal fishing. If we are to ensure that such agreements are properly policed and that a substantial proportion of the finances are directed towards conservation and development, we will be in a better position to respond to our critics' legitimate concerns. I commend this report to the House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Below cost selling has been a much-discussed issue over the past months. The Commission would prefer to use this regulation to lift the ban on this practice in various countries. Such a commitment would have catastrophic consequences for smaller producers, such as those in the agricultural and viticultural sectors. Unlike the major supermarket chains, they often sell only one product and cannot pass onto other products the losses involved in below cost selling. They would therefore lose all their capacity to compete, and, in order to counteract that, many producers would feel themselves constrained to use ingredients that were cheaper and thus of poorer quality. Lower prices would not alter the fact that it would still be the consumer who lost out in all this. It was with some satisfaction that I noted that the committee with competence in these matters has adopted the text of my amendment on the subject and managed to reach a compromise that satisfies almost everybody. In the Legal Affairs Committee, other amendments sought to prohibit any sales promotion whatever of alcoholic drinks such as wine, beer or spirits. There is no doubt that excessive consumption of alcohol needs to be stopped by means of appropriate education at an early stage. Moreover, all the Member States stipulate a minimum age for the public consumption of alcohol. Prohibiting any sales promotion whatever is, however, disproportionate, harming as it does all consumers rather than only the small minority who are addicted to alcohol and therefore need treatment. A majority on the Legal Affairs Committee realised the absurdity of this step and rejected the amendments to which I have referred. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I must first say how sorry I am to have arrived late for the debate, meaning that I did not hear the rapporteur’s introduction. Please do excuse me, but the debate began a little earlier than scheduled. We have chosen to accept the compromise agreed upon. We believe it to be reasonable, even if we should like to have gone further in certain areas, for example when it came to the content of Article 17. We have nonetheless chosen to approve the compromise. We are fairly sceptical about the active and intelligent materials. We nevertheless believe that the compromise is sound overall because it constitutes a clear improvement upon the original proposal. That is a constructive step along the road. Finally, I wish to emphasise that, in our opinion, traceability is very important.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to thank Commissioner Patten for his response and for his involvement in this issue. When the Israeli Government publishes these details, we as members of the European Parliament naturally wish to get to the bottom of the matter. I would therefore ask the Commissioner the following questions: Do you feel that relations with the Israeli Government are good and that the Israeli Government believes that the report submitted to the Commission and to the European Parliament can be removed from the agenda? Or do the Israelis maintain the accusations contained in the report? I also wonder whether you believe that the aid which the EU is giving to the Middle East is sufficiently well controlled in general rather than just in this case.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Trentin for his interesting report. Even though it contains a clear endorsement of the stability policy, the report, as I interpret it, is characterised mainly by attempts to find new avenues, create openings, relax the rules and bring about greater freedom of manoeuvre. I also think that the amendments by the social democratic MEPs extend those lines of thought, in other words in the direction of creating a little more scope for expansion and innovation. That is positive, for I believe that Europe’s economy, which is still characterised by high unemployment, growing social problems and stagnation in important areas such as education and research, requires more expansion, dynamism and innovation. Anyone who follows the politico-economic debate in the European Union will see that it is greatly concerned with rules, control, prohibitions, cohesion, coordination, discipline and such like. Really, it does not sound at all as if we are discussing a liberal market economy, but a rather bureaucratic and ponderous economy. I believe that vigorous efforts ought instead to be made to stimulate the economy and to channel public investment into education and research, something that is really needed if we are to realise the Lisbon objectives. Major improvements in the environmental sphere also need to be made and, as Mr Markov pointed out, purchasing power needs to be increased and care taken to create demand so that companies can dare to begin investing again and so that we can invest in quality and in initiatives that help enable us to comply with the ambitious Lisbon objectives. That is unfortunately not what I see. What I see is something resembling a straightjacket, characterised by stability, rules and discipline. That is not enough.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as regards paragraph 11, I propose an oral amendment intended to replace the words ‘alternative energy sources’ with the words ‘renewable energy sources’. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(4) on the situation in Bolivia (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** President. That concludes the votes.(5) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE – Draft general budget of the European Union – 2004 Financial year

Political group: PSE