GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fully support Mrs Sauquillo's report, commending the hard work put in and the contribution it makes to the changes to the Committee on Development and Cooperation. If, as is hoped in the explanatory statement, the reform brings about greater involvement of the European Parliament, we will have to establish a sort of policy which does not merely stop at money or budget headings, which, in practice, take the form of tangible aid to less developed countries. Aid does not just mean donating money but providing practical assistance in times of difficulty or for things which they would not be able to do themselves or without assistance. Poverty and need are not just the product of economic backwardness and development problems but are often the result of aggression and the exploitation of the weak by the strong, of the selfishness of the capable in the face of the weakness of the marginalised. Before we start to talk about aid to projects, we should try to remove all the existing causes of exploitation, identifying and bringing to justice those who have exploited and abused peoples which are in a state of need. The reformed Commission must establish a project, before dispensing aid, to investigate the causes which have created or contributed to creating a state of discomfort among the poor peoples. We often talk about cancelling the debt of the less developed countries. The phrase would lead us to believe that it is an act of altruism or great generosity but, when all is said and done, it may be merely an act of justice. The Commission must also ensure that this happens at international level. In this way, quality of life will improve and the gap between the poor, who are becoming increasingly poorer, and the very rich, who are exploiting these situations and becoming increasingly richer, will be lessened.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that when we are talking about security a double language is being used. There are those who say that our real security lies in mediation, cooperation and prevention. Then there are others who say that our security depends on our defence and intervention capacities and associate it more with military aspects. As far as I am concerned, the basis of our security is the credibility of our politics. Are we credible when in our association agreements with the Maghreb countries, for example, or other countries, we insert an Article 2 that talks about human rights and democracy and then quickly forget this article in our actual relations with these countries? No, no one takes us seriously! We sign association agreements and whenever things get complicated we forget one of the aspects of our security: being surrounded by democracies. The more democracies there are, the less the risk of war. Are we credible? Elmar Brok is right when he asks if we were credible in the Balkans. No. We proclaimed: peace, peace, peace. Men were massacred and we had no power to intervene. We therefore were not credible. When we are told that our positions must be consistent with those of the Americans, that we must not go against the Americans, I say that we should be neither for or against the Americans. Yet is it credible to say that we are going to war because there are weapons of mass destruction when in fact there are none and it is a lie? We are not credible. Do Europeans have the right to say that a lie is a lie? Are all pro-Americans still annoyed when we say that the Americans lied, that Colin Powell lied in the Security Council? Let us take another example. Are we credible when we invoke international law as an argument? Yet is international law, as it exists today, the Bible? No. Is a Security Council without Brazil, without India, without South Africa a Security Council for today’s world? No. Therefore, fighting for international law is to fight to reform it, to change it. We must stop saying the same thing over and over: international law as it currently stands came from the Cold War and the Cold War is no longer our problem. I will end with a comment on terrorism. Once again, are we credible in this respect when on the one hand, along with others, we quite rightly say that we had to intervene in Afghanistan to combat the terrorism, yet on the other hand we remain silent on everything that has happened in Guantanamo? Fighting and struggling against terrorism is to fight and struggle for the rule of law, wherever it may be, during war and in the different forms of war. If we do not succeed in resolving these problems together, we are not credible. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the basis of security is credibility. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, may I congratulate Commissioner Byrne for fitting all that into a short space of time, but we did not catch much of it, because the interpreters found it impossible to keep up with the pace he set. We must find some sort of a system to ensure that the comments made by members of the Commission actually reach our ears – either the speeches will have to be shortened or the Commissioners will have to be given more time to deliver them. One way or the other, we cannot expect the House to make do with the present system. It makes unreasonable demands of the Commissioner and of us who are trying to listen to him.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the war in Kosovo has knocked everything off balance. This is certainly true for the relations between the European Union and the western Balkans. Since then, expectations have been high. This applies to them and us. This is true on their part because – whether we like it or not – they are asking us for direct aid and they are wondering what Europe wants from them at the end of the day? Is there any prospect of membership? This is very much on their minds. But here too, within the European Union, expectations are high. If we do things properly, this may well be a first taster of a genuine common foreign and security policy. Will the Union manage to display a united front and develop a common policy, for the first time, concerning such a difficult regulation? It also remains to be seen whether the European Union has learnt any lessons from the bad experiences in Bosnia when it comes to providing aid and the slightly better experiences in Kosovo. Can we, based on the experiences in Macedonia and in four other countries, improve on this? Against this background of extremely high expectations, I do not think that I am exaggerating if I say that this first step, namely the stability and association agreement with Macedonia, is vitally important. This is not the Union’s only contribution. The debate on the Stability Pact, the debate on the CARA programme and the financing arrangements in the short term are all pending. We are now dealing with the stabilisation and association agreements, that is to say a medium-term issue. This is why I think that this first agreement with Macedonia is so crucial, because it serves as a model. I am convinced that the four other countries are wondering what is going to happen. What does the European Union intend to do with Macedonia? Will it do the same to us? This first step is so important because of this model function. Macedonia also serves as a model for another reason. The rapporteur has already hinted at this in no uncertain terms, namely, the issue of interethnic relations. There is no need to paint too much of an idealistic picture. During the presidential elections, it appeared that things were not running too smoothly, but compared to the rest of the region, Macedonia could serve as a model. We would gain a great deal if we managed to export this model to the rest of the western Balkans with the help of the Macedonians. This model function also applies to regional cooperation. I could not agree more with the rapporteur: a balance must be struck between promoting regional cooperation on the one hand and maintaining the openness towards Bulgaria and Greece, and not cutting them off on the other. Mr President, Commissioner, if we manage this first step successfully, we will have gained a great deal. If we mess it up, then we will have lost a great deal more.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Carlotti's report, a very important document on ACP-EU cooperation, has taken on a new dimension because it also presents the new possibilities open to us following the Cotonou Agreement. ACP-EU cooperation has gained a new democratic aspect, and that means that we also need to provide a new democratic dimension in shaping this cooperation. That is why the emphasis on the parliamentary nature of the Assembly presented in this report is so important. Flesh needs to be put on the bones of this idea. And that is also why it was so important for this report to be approved by this House before the session in Cape Town, so as to give us moral support for the reform of this cooperation process. We need a following wind if we are to strengthen the parliamentary dimension and to achieve what we have pledged to do. We have been told that the work on the new Rules of Procedure has not been totally without conflict – that is why it will be very important for us to have the support this report so that the negotiations in Cape Town can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I am sure that we will be able to agree on a structure for the standing committees, which will accordingly change the nature of cooperation in this parliamentary assembly. The standing parliamentary committees make it possible to work continuously on problem areas, whereas up to now it has only been possible for us to work in ad hoc working groups. I hope that this form of cooperation will facilitate far more intensive work on various themes and closer cooperation with our colleagues on the ACP side. The regional meetings will also lend new weight to our work. They will also give a voice to other people involved in ACP cooperation who have not so far had an opportunity to have their views heard.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, when in 1988 the European Parliament, acting as a budgetary authority, managed to have the funds intended for cooperation with Latin American and Asia allocated to separate budget lines, a decisive step was taken in the regionalisation of Community external relations; an approach which has been consolidated as the one most in line with the idea of functionality and specificity which governs Community policy and as the most effective in terms of development. Now, in accordance with its legislative competences, it falls to this Parliament to gives its opinion on the modification of the ALA Regulation which covers cooperation with both regions jointly. In accordance with this approach, an example of which is Parliament's unanimous vote for the Salafranca report on a global partnership with Latin America, in the Committee on Development and Cooperation, in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and in the delegations for Central America and Mercosur, we have given our support by a huge majority in favour of the existence of two differentiated regulations: one for Asia and another for Latin America. Tomorrow there will be a vote which is as historic and significant to both regions and Europe as the one which led to the division of the budget lines. The Socialist Group supports the existence of two differentiated regulations out of coherence with a long journey which is now culminating; because we believe that Latin America and Asia deserve to be treated at least equally with the other developing regions – and, in this regard, both political representatives and representatives of civil society of the two regions have demonstrated to us their desire for their own regulations and programmes; because we are convinced that the benefits for the populations of both regions, the ultimate objective of the regulations, will be much greater than the administrative difficulties the Commission is afraid of – at the end of the day, these difficulties will be limited to a healthy division into two of the current ALA Committee and a reallocation of staff; and finally, because we profoundly respect our own legislative capacity. The political message we are sending to the populations of Asia and Latin America by means of these two regulations is particularly encouraging at this time of enlargement, of European expansion towards the East and of reduction of cooperation funds in order to deal with other situations, which are perhaps more urgent but no more necessary. Finally, Mr President, I would like to point out that the amendments to the content of the regulations, on which I warmly congratulate Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and the secretariat of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, will considerably improve the quality of our contribution to the fight against poverty and will consolidate the political messages sent in regions between the European Union and Latin America and the importance of strengthening the European Union's actions on the continent of Asia.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, many aspects of the common position we have here reflect Parliament’s position at first reading, and this demonstrates the Council’s willingness to work with Parliament in order to achieve a positive and rapid outcome in this area, which is so important for European consumers. I would have liked to simply approve the common position without further ado. However, I find one point that has already been mentioned several times enormously difficult – category of animal. This comes under compulsory labelling, where it has no place to be. Category of animal really does not assist the regulation’s objective of guaranteeing meat traceability. I therefore support the adoption of Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5. The Council will now have to remove the provisions relating to category of animal at its meeting in mid-July if it does not want to risk the regulation not coming into force on 1 September this year. Secondly, there is Amendment No 4 on minced beef, which relates to the last part of Article 14, first paragraph, beginning “and origin”. I am afraid I cannot follow this either. In my view, this amendment lacks precision. How is ‘origin’ to be defined here? Does it refer to where the animal was born or where it was fattened, or both, and who is responsible for labelling here? Exactly how will origin be indicated? None of this is clearly worded and I see a risk that the Council will refuse point blank to accept this amendment, so that we will end up with a conciliation procedure, which will in turn further delay the entry into force of the regulation. This is not in the interests of consumers, and I therefore call on the House to reject Amendments Nos 4 and 6.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the performance of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers causes me great concern too. Yesterday, one of its principal members, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, attacked the proposals from the Convention as threatening to bring about a federal state with centralised fiscal policy. This is a grossly false accusation displaying a regrettable prejudice against the work of the Convention. Then Ecofin tries to subvert the package on the financial system. Its reactionary proposals appear to want to move away from QMV to permanent unanimity on the financial perspectives, and also to remove Parliament’s right of assent. They want to retreat from the ordinary law towards Council law and to remove Parliament’s last word on the budget. One certain consequence of this would be an increase in the overall expenditure of the budget. Without being able to out-vote troublesome and perhaps greedy Member States, the Union will be obliged to have protracted and public rows ending in costly concessions. In effect, the Finance Ministers are seeking to suppress this Parliament’s role as a partner in the budgetary authority. They are imposing treasury autocracy upon parliamentary democracy. The power of the purse is a core function, a most central and long-standing power of the parliaments in all our Member States. Should the proposals of the Ecofin Council be allowed to prosper at the IGC, this Parliament will be reduced to a pale mockery. The autocrats will have won out over the democrats. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, since an agreement has now been reached with the Council, the Group of the will withdraw its three amendments. They are Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 9.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have, on 23 October 2003, voted in favour of the budget at the European Parliament’s first reading and in favour of Mrs Gill’s report (A5-0350/2003). In that connection, I should like to emphasise that I am unable to support those parts of the budget concerning the Statute of Members and aid to the European political parties.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to ask you to instruct the Security Service to investigate what has been going on. When I came into my office this morning, the door was open, even though I know for sure that I closed it last night, and my computer was switched on, even though I am quite certain that I switched it off last night. I think that what went on there last night must be investigated at any rate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the summit on 6 November will be different because not only is Russia currently the EU's fifth largest trading partner, but from next May it will be its neighbour. Already the acceding countries are flexing their muscles, as illustrated by Lithuania's concerns over the controversial D-6 oilfield in the Baltic Sea, and Latvia's objections to harsh criticism over its treatment of its Russian minorities, who will number almost one million between the Baltic republics in the EU next year. The EU will shortly be importing Russian uranium. Plans are afoot to synchronise the two electricity grids. Pressure is mounting on Russian to ratify Kyoto, as otherwise the treaty is dead. In exchange, Russia will want EU support in its quest to join WTO, where there are many unresolved problems, from its dual pricing over gas to export duties and discriminatory transport fees paid to Aeroflot to overfly Siberia. Recently, the issue of pricing Russian oil in euros was raised. Surely this is for the markets to decide, not governments. I welcome formal cooperation with Europol and OLAF and hope that visa-free travel for Russians will be possible once the issue of a readmission agreement for illegal migrants is settled. We are used to the abuses levelled at President Putin over Chechnya, where the recent victory of President Kadyrov was described as lacking in pluralism, and human rights abuses still go on. But what do the Russia-bashers want? A failed, rogue, independent state in the Caucasus with links to Al Qaeda, exporting organised crime to the European Union? First we must see law and order restored. Only then can true democracy prevail. Only Russia can deliver that. Recently, Russia signed a controversial and, in my view, regrettable single economic space agreement with Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, but at the same time we now see dangerous military posturing from Russia and threats to invade as a result of the dispute over Tuzla Island in the Black Sea. I hope that this can be resolved amicably. I hope that one day we will see arrangements for a single free-market-style economic space with the EU and Russia united as one big economic entity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think Mrs Doyle cannot have examined the genesis of the actual situation, as we have debated this issue on several occasions in this House. I cannot imagine, Madame Doyle, that the Council was unanimous and this House almost unanimous in taking a decision based solely on the Airbus defence. No, there are thousands of residents living in the vicinity of airports who suffer considerable noise pollution. Obviously, this regulation offers them the best protection as things stand at present under current international legislation. Secondly, Mrs de Palacio, Mr Coelho, in my view, the postponement of one year served no useful purpose, for the simple reason that American interests – and when I say American interests I mean the interests of one section of American industry – are clearly interests which run counter to the general improvement of standards, even more so in the case of ‘hushkits’. There are only two things that will cause them to shift position: pressure from the European Union or pressure from their own public opinion for, unfortunately, the United States is a vast territory and the environs of airports are less badly affected than the territories overflown in Europe, which is, by virtue of its geographical layout, affected more seriously by such constraints. American opinion will therefore only be shifted significantly in turn if we first make it known in our capacity as Europeans. My regret is that this year’s postponement may have been seen by our partners as indicative of weakness in our position. Let me tell you, then, Mrs de Palacio, Mr Coelho, that we want to see firm negotiation. There are no grounds for suspending regulations. We might at best revise them, but we could do so only in one instance: if an international agreement makes it possible to improve the situation and to draw up an overall framework agreement. An overall framework does not mean evading the issue, as I began to doubt upon hearing the views of the Council. Do we in fact all agree on the idea that the framework agreement should apply to standards on sound levels and should not seek to cover too wide an area, which would tend to force us to accept a number of compromises regarding sound levels, at the expense of some other type of pollution, which probably deserves our attention, but not so much so as to warrant our ceding our argument.

Political group: PSE
I thank the Mr President-in-Office. His reply is very positive. I wish to say that this refers to a great many people with European passports, including women and children, Italians, Greeks and other nationals of the European Union who have married Palestinians. I should like what he said to be put into practice; in other words, at the first opportunity and taking account of the friendly attitude of the Italian Government towards Israel, which was even expressed in the wish that Israel should one day become a member of the European Union, for this matter to be raised as a matter of urgency, so that a solution is found quickly to the very unfortunate situation they face.

Political group: GUE-NGL