GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as a general point I would first say what a pity it is that we did not use this great opportunity of enlargement to introduce a lighter, less integrative approach to European cooperation, which would be less burdensome to all concerned. Instead we have the enormous weight of the imposed acquis, which grows by the day and significant elements of which are ignored even by current Member States, let alone the candidate states. I would also hope that the enlargement report before this House will continue to make reference to all 13 candidates for accession. This will enable Turkey's progress to be addressed. I note Mr de Miguel's realistic but encouraging remarks with regard to Turkey. Furthermore, the negotiations for a just, lasting and mutually acceptable settlement of the Cyprus question, which most of us so anxiously desire, are at a very sensitive stage. Both sides must be encouraged to make the necessary compromises to reach such a settlement. As rapporteur for Bulgaria, I want to commend that country for the steady progress it is making towards EU membership, with its economic successes, its strategies for administrative and judicial reform, for more effectively dealing with the problems of its minorities, for tightening its borders and for fighting corruption. We now need to translate these strategies into more effective action which produces tangible results so that Bulgaria will be in a position rapidly to close all the negotiating chapters with a view to accession in about 2007 or 2008. Such a positive outlook, backed up by what must be well targeted, well managed European Union assistance, would help sustain support for modernising governments and reformed public institutions in Bulgaria – support which is frail at the moment. We need to send a positive signal to Bulgaria with a clear road map for accession. I welcome Commissioner Verheugen's promise of additional aid and a reinforced approximation strategy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I hope that the Commissioner will not hold it against me for saying this – it is not intended personally – but what you gave us today as a statement from the Commission was vacuous, every bit as vacuous as the documents you have sent to us – and I emphasise ‘us’, as I am referring to Parliament – over the past few weeks. I will shortly be saying something about the existence of other documents that are worth talking about and discussing, but first I will turn to the documents and the statement that you have given us. You started by mentioning in your introduction that we are engaged in a discussion, and one that is being conducted in a very open way. At any rate, that is how it came across when interpreted into German. What do you mean by 'open'? Open as regards the possible outcome or open in the way the discussion is conducted? Both interpretations make me uneasy. With an open outcome? We have already moved on too far for that. Now you issue a Green Paper, which I see as nothing more than a means of creating a smokescreen while there are other decisions that urgently need to be taken. This is yet another exercise in avoiding doing anything, whilst, at the same time, very practical preparations are going ahead in other areas. Nor is the discussion being conducted in an open manner, for, as I have just told you, we have been given your statement on behalf of the Commission, along with documents of four or five pages each, not that the number of pages is of great importance. Yet, while we are given these documents, others are getting what are described as ‘non-papers’ – substantial documents that are really worth discussing, and in which we could find that there is legal certainty on specific points. Take the so-called non-paper dated 12 November, with its margin numbers – all 102 of them! You discuss these things with others, but not with us. I just want to pick up one point and be told what the Commission really thinks about it. Item 100 says: ‘An enterprise may provide more than one service to the public, some of them realising a profit and others showing a loss. Even if the enterprise does not provide public services, its services may cross-subsidise each other’. What that means is that, if we get an answer, we would be resolving an important financial issue, one that would help bring legal certainty. What we need right now is an answer and not this or that Green Paper, which serve only to delay the discussion process for ever and a day.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, my report on passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway has been placed on Tuesday’s agenda under item No 16. In recent months, different groups have continuously called for either bringing the discussion forward or postponing it. Last week, I was informed that three of the groups, , and the , were in favour of postponing the discussion. I then agreed to this on the assumption that the other groups needed more time for a fully-fledged discussion. When on Thursday evening, much to my surprise, I heard that the Conference of Presidents had decided to go ahead with the discussion after all, I informed all Members that I was still prepared to postpone the debate. It since transpired on Thursday afternoon that the Group had not been in favour of postponement and that it is no longer an issue for the Group either. Furthermore, the agendas of the two remaining plenary part-sessions of this year are already full. Now that I have found this out, I am withdrawing my offer which I made in writing and circulated and I assume that the debate will go ahead tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there are 4 500 farmers of British, Dutch, German and Greek origin who own 8.3 million hectares of land in Zimbabwe. Nine white farmers and 360 black farm workers have been killed in the chaos over the last few months. Thousands of black farmers have lost their jobs and their homes and the farms are unworkable. Zimbabwe depends on the success of agriculture and the contribution of these farmers is vital to sustain its economy. There is money available from the United Kingdom government under the Lancaster House Agreement and there is a willingness among the white farmers to give up 80% of their land to settle the black families. Mugabe must accept such a solution. In 1970, Tanzania nationalised sisal farms, businesses and real estate, killing its private sector. The same happened in Uganda in 1972, when the Asians were expelled, and those two countries' economies have been bankrupt ever since. I sympathise with the farmers and farm workers of Zimbabwe, as my family was a victim of similar confiscation and nationalisation. My family has lived in Tanzania for 166 years, much longer than many white farmers in Zimbabwe. We bought land from Deutsch-Ostafrika in 1876 and I still have a title deed. We lost land and property through nationalisation without compensation and I know what that means. I share the grief of the silent black majority in Zimbabwe, who continue to live in poverty. The poorest in Zimbabwe do not want to shoot, kill, loot and burn crops. They are hungry and unemployed. They need food, education, health, employment and shelter. It was the vision and quality like Nelson Mandela that at last set an example for Africa that reconciliation, cooperation, democracy and respect for all people, irrespective of their colour, is the only way to govern a developing country the only way to help the poorest to be free of poverty and disease. President Mugabe must follow Mr Mandela and accept reconciliation and democracy, allow the white farmers to thrive and continue farming and accept that Zimbabwe belongs to the people of Zimbabwe and nobody has the right to deprive them of a decent life based on peace and democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Liese has already referred to the conference that our group organised with him and other fellow MEPs in September last year at which we agreed to submit this resolution to this Parliament and the Commission. We are after all convinced that the extreme poverty of the rural population that has to make a living from survival agriculture makes this the poorest population in the world. The rural population, which in Guatemala largely consists of the indigenous population, is unfortunately no exception to this. That is why it is of the utmost importance that each of the sentences in this resolution is considered very carefully. We do not have the time to go into each of these aspects in depth, but it is clear that in these circumstances land reform is necessary, even if that word is taboo. It is the indigenous population that is clearly suffering most and that has no access to healthy food, that has no access to a good education and that has no access to land. The women are the biggest victims of all because they simply do not count, although in many cases it is they who have to provide alone for very large, extended families. There is a wave of human rights violations at the moment and people in the country are acting with complete impunity. In these circumstances there are good reasons to recall the ratification of membership of the International Criminal Court and we would also like to insist on the abolition of the death penalty. All this to underline that just one of the countries for which we had some hope a few years ago is threatening to slip back into a state of impunity again, the agreements of 1996 remaining a dead letter. We donate quite a lot of money to cooperation with these countries in Latin America. Let us ensure that our international agreements, which come down to our aid and our cooperation having first to be for the benefit of the poorest, actually make this possible and that the government is obliged to lend its assistance in this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The attitude and decisions adopted by the US in order to shamefully protect its steel industry at the expense of European interests, perfectly illustrate that, beyond wonderful speeches and liberal statements, what now dominates the world is the law of the strongest. This is what George W. Bush is relying on in this case; take another look at the fable of the Wolf and the Lamb by Jean de la Fontaine. That is why Europe must take firm action using the legal means provided for within the framework of the WTO, but also using all the other available means of exerting pressure at a time when the United States continues to call on other shared aims in its fight against terrorism. This situation is proof of the true nature of American-style globalisation. It sums up the speeches on the benefits of free competition that is lacking in rules. It reassures those who believe that we need a political Europe that is capable of existing and also to influence the management of world affairs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on the night of 19 March, 23 young people died in a terrible bus accident in Konginkangas in central Finland. This collision between a bus and a juggernaut is the worst road traffic accident in the history of our country. A committee of inquiry has been set up by the government to investigate the causes of the accident. Was the extremely slippery road surface to blame, or rolls of paper loaded too loosely onto the vehicle; or was the accident that took the lives of 23 young people due to something else? I hope that, in the future, Parliament too will be able to benefit from this committee’s investigation. At the same time, I would ask you when, in two weeks’ time, you visit Finland, to offer Parliament’s condolences to our people for this terrible accident.

Political group: ELDR
The new proposal for a directive presents important differences in comparison with the perception that has applied to date for combating foot-and-mouth disease and moves in a more positive direction. The most basic difference is that the use of vaccines as a basic measure for combating foot-and-mouth disease is permitted, while measures to isolate, ban movements and culling, which were the only measures allowed to date, are treated as supplementary measures. Similarly, it establishes the marginalisation of the countries in which the disease appears and requires even greater veterinarian monitoring and more staff with the necessary flexibility. We are opposed, however, to the provision which allows the European Commission to decide about vaccines or refer the matter to a Community body for a decision to be taken on its own, even without the assent of the Member State in question. The Member States and the competent national services are the only authorities competent to evaluate the problem and promote measures to deal with it. - Joint resolution on the ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we adopt the Markov report today then this new legislation will not only interest those directly involved in the transport sector but millions of people in Europe, because this is also about road safety. Safety in road freight transport concerns everyone who lives in the EU, because – and the statistics are clear about this – overtiredness at the wheel kills! A study by the European Safety Council shows that more than 50% of drivers admit that they have fallen asleep at the wheel at least once in their driving careers so far. What then is to be done? We think that the working times in this sector, the driving times, need to be reduced. We have tabled an amendment stating that they should be reduced to 80 hours every two weeks with a maximum of 45 to 48 hours in any one week. What we have at the moment is 56 hours per week. That is only the driving time. On top of that there is loading and unloading. There is no other job in industry that presents such a high risk for which we permit such long working hours. In addition, systematic inspections need to be introduced. As Mr Piecyk mentioned, when the regulation on the digital tachograph is implemented, we must exert pressure on all of the national governments to introduce checks on undertakings, the company card. If you talk to police officers they will tell you that this company card is the only way of effecting systematic checks on undertakings. Obviously we will have to ensure that this European legislation is respected in the competent overarching bodies, for example in the requirements for CEMT licences. I have raised this with Mrs Isabelle Durant, who is currently chairing CEMT, so that this issue is put on the agenda of the CEMT ministerial meeting of 21 and 22 April.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the World Food Summit, which is to be held in Rome next month, is part of a series of meetings that are setting the parameters for contemporary international relations, but I do not think that this is just one more summit: the World Food Summit concerns the most important fundamental right, the right to life or survival, which regrettably, hundreds of millions of people are currently deprived of. Eradicating hunger and guaranteeing food security are essential conditions for development, but this development is hindered by malnutrition. Moreover, food security affects other aspects of development and of North-South relations, such as the sustainability of agriculture and world trade. For these reasons, the Socialist Group has worked particularly hard on this resolution and we have introduced the fundamental right to food security, the principle of food sovereignty and freedom of choice of agricultural and biological technologies, considering water and biodiversity as inalienable public property, the need for coherence among European policies, particularly among development and trade policies and the common agricultural policy, and the principle of proximity of production, processing and sale of food products, including food aid. By introducing these elements, we have managed to moderate both proactive tendencies and the zeal for liberalisation. We think that the Rome Summit should be a success that revitalises the objectives of the millennium, including reducing hunger and malnutrition by half by 2015, an objective on which we are behind, because as has been said it is decreasing at a rate of 6 million people per year when the figure should be 22 million per year. We would particularly like to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that in September negotiations begin on the economic association agreements with the ACP countries, and to the absolute need for coherence between development policy and the position it takes within the WTO. There are six amendments to this resolution, all of which were tabled by my colleague Didier Rod, which we agree with and are going to support, and we are only going to leave voting free on Amendment No 5, which aims to introduce a new paragraph 14a.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this Green Paper comes at a time when the EU is confronted with dwindling stocks, over-capacity and ineffective and over-centralised management. The review is an opportunity not only rectify shortcomings but also to preserve crucial provisions which are worthwhile and necessary for the survival of Europe's fragile fisheries-dependent communities. We must preserve the six- and twelve- mile zones at least. We must continue with special conservation areas like the Shetland Box and support historic fishing rights through the fundamental principle of relative stability. The common goal of conserving stocks for future generations remains the most important objective of the CFP. It is imperative that the promotion of sustainable fisheries and the needs of fisheries-dependent communities are kept to the fore. The report paves the way for decentralisation and the Commission must set out a comprehensive form of zonal management, delivered through zonal management committees. I stress the word 'management'. The fishing industry, the processors, the scientists and NGOs must all be actively involved and their expertise utilised to ensure that the new CFP ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it stands to reason that a European constitution makes sense if it is actually worthy of the name; so, quite certainly, do the plebiscites or referendums that even the treasurer and election campaign manager of the Group of the European People’s Party has called for. Which draft, though, do we see before us? Will this draft by the Convention give us fair and, above all, truly transparent decision-making structures? Will it bring about the unmistakeably clear separation of powers? Will enough decisions be taken by majority vote? Did not the governments brutally force through their positions, as one of the previous speakers, Mr Voggenhuber, put it? Will the small Member States lose out? Will only a few of the large ones gain anything, Mr Rack? Will the European Parliament become fully representative of the people? Can it now call individual Commissioners to account in any real sense? If we cannot, then can, at least, the voters? Are they able to directly elect the Commissioners? Will voters have direct influence on the decisions of the Council? In essence, will there be more direct democracy? John Palmer, of the respected European Policy Centre, and numerous German provincial prime ministers of varying political colours, have for years been saying over and over again, that if a country were constituted in the same way as the European Union, it would not be able, by reason of its lack of democratic legitimacy, to qualify as a Member State of the EU. Will this new draft now do away with this fundamental deficit? Are our much-valued European regions not left out? What about the right of appeal? Will we now at last have the proximity to the citizens that we have so often invoked? Is the draft so clear and comprehensible that young people will be able to get to grips with it and get some idea of what Europe is? Will it not result in incessant wrangling and party-political horse-trading? A strong social market economy is the key to social peace in Europe – does the constitution contain any of the framework conditions on which that is dependent? The answer to too many of these questions has to be ‘no’. That is why it now makes sense to convinced Europeans, among whom I number myself, to say ‘no’ to the text that is before us. In any case, there can be no democracy without transparency, and, to this deception, we have to say, ‘no, thank you’.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I also say what I wish to say, and that is why I should first like expressly to thank Mr Posselt for not only criticising and condemning the practice of torture as such in the abstract, but also for naming specific states that sponsor torture. I believe that this is one of the most important political points, and we should not forget it. In our relations with third countries we should also name any states that practise torture. He mentioned Russia and Turkey, and I am rapporteur for Iran, but that does not stop me from saying that regrettably in Iran too torture still takes place. We address this publicly, for example in the human rights dialogue that is underway with this country. That is why, Commissioner, I think it would have been good if you not only addressed this in individual political dialogues, that is behind closed doors, but if you too had given the names of countries that are associated with torture. In this context, if we have evidence of torture, I think it is very important for us to withdraw privileges, for example the trade privileges enjoyed by many ACP States in the context of the Cotonou Agreement, in accordance with the precautions that we have taken in the treaties. We have mechanisms for doing this, but it does not seem to me that we are using them in respect of the 77 ACP States, except in the case of Zimbabwe, where we have taken quite modest measures. You mentioned a further point, namely the treatment centres for torture victims. If I interpret what you said correctly, you were saying that you intended to stop funding these treatment centres. You only qualified this by saying, 'not overnight', but the policy is clear. You did also mention that there are other potential sources of funding. This is a clear indication that this is obviously your intention. I would urge you to rethink. As a matter of principle, we can only withdraw if we have information that the torture has stopped or lessened, but not without that information. That is why I am supporting a proposal that I have heard is being tabled by the Socialist Group, namely to increase budget item B5-813 by EUR 1 million. I am also trying to enlist support for the proposal in my own group. So we are asking for the opposite of abolishing the budget item: unfortunately at the moment a further increase. I would ask the Commission to act in concert with us. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE