GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I also have first-hand experience of Lebanon and to continue using the images used by the previous speaker, I would say that it is possible to be in love with Lebanon but that love, in this case, does not mean turning a blind eye. I feel that the European Union has negotiated with an official Lebanon, a somewhat theoretical Lebanon, not to say mythical, that the situation in Lebanon today is sadly still a long way from the idyllic visions that some wish to use in order to justify the agreement, and that, fortunately, our debate re-establishes the harsh reality. Lebanon is a State whose independence still poses problems today. More than ten years after the Taïf agreements, the Israelis have withdrawn but the Syrians remain and are still very present in a country over which they maintain a protectorate and whose independence they have never really recognised. The warlords remain, there is still no Rule of Law or free media, as we saw again just recently at the last summit of French-speaking countries, drug-trafficking and corruption remain, and terrorist bases, in particular, as has been pointed out, Hezbollah bases, still remain. Mr President, we are therefore in a paradoxical situation, because an assessment of the Lebanese situation gives rise to a whole string of reasons that would be cause to suspend the agreement if it existed and was still operational. That is the paradox we face today. Is there a need for an association? An association, Mr President, can only exist between two parties. Does the European Union currently have a fully credible partner? Unfortunately that is still in doubt.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first, may I apologise to the House for missing much of this debate, but unfortunately I had to be present at the STOA Panel to vote to try and prevent the suppression of a scientific report at the behest of Europe's chocolate multinationals on inedibles in food. Doubly unfortunately, the vote was lost by 11 votes to 8. On Afghanistan, firstly I congratulate Mr Brie on his report on a difficult subject in a difficult country. I was privileged to be part of the delegation from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to Afghanistan in June 2003. It was clear that security is the paramount issue. Unfortunately, the glass increasingly seems to be half-empty, rather than half-full. The occupying coalition troops and the United States sit out their days in their fixed and mobile fortresses, when on the streets they exhibit the same heavy-handed style currently displayed in Iraq. ISAF has a footprint centred on Kabul, limiting its operations to 2% of Afghanistan's land area. The rest of the country is effectively abandoned to feuding warlords who monopolise revenues and dispense arbitrary justice in their private prisons, making President Karzai at times little more than the United States-backed mayor of Kabul. After the marines killed three Afghan national army soldiers in a friendly-fire exchange, ISAF stepped in to broker peace between the two groups, ostensibly on the same side. Yet for many in the Afghan national army, the ISAF and the United States troops are merely all flowers from the same garden. Campaigns without resources to spread ISAF's presence outside Kabul are wishful and wistful thinking. No-one seems able or willing to find the money to increase the number of troops – some 40 000 would be needed for nationwide coverage. In the south the main targets for the remnants of the Taliban are foreigners, but without reconstruction work, the temptation for the local population is to see the situation as no better, if not worse, than under the Taliban. Many people argue that large sections of the Taliban could be brought back into civic society, but to do that would be to shift the social centre of gravity back towards an Islamic conservatism that bodes ill for women's emancipation. Human rights is important, particularly the situation of women. Formal rights may well be given but they are unlikely to play out in the villages. The best hope for the future may be universal education, which will not change current attitudes but rather those of the next generation. The United States and the EU are pushing bottom lines that in practice are probably undeliverable. As the United Nations Special Representative said, if you are trying to introduce western-style democracy in Afghanistan, you are wasting your time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, further down the voting list there is a vote on several resolutions on the oral question on the liberal professions. I would like to ask that this be removed from the agenda and deferred until the next part-session in Brussels. This has also been agreed with the Group of the . We want to try to find a compromise resolution rather than vote on these contradictory resolutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Despite the commendable efforts of Mr Lannoye, I personally voted against this text which aims to authorise the addition of 5% of vegetable fats to chocolate. This is the very type of European regulation which leads to a lack of understanding among our fellow citizens and which prepares the ground for Euro-scepticism. Where a clear and unambiguous labelling obligation would have been sufficient to allow the marketing of all the types of chocolate available in Europe, one of those grotesque compromises at which we are so adept has been proposed. Instead of no vegetable fats as specified in eight Member States or 10% as specified in other Member States, the knife has fallen at 5% for the whole of Europe! This 5% of vegetable fats, which of course cannot be verified, will be of greatest benefit to the chocolate industry which will soon flood the market with cheap imitation chocolate, thereby causing an increase in the price of real chocolate which will become a luxury product for privileged consumers. Will we now harmonise the composition of tomato ketchup, mustard, cooked meats, cheese, beer or pizzas, all in the name of a single market aiming to promote a single taste solely for the benefit of the food business? Although it is legitimate, out of concern for public health, to lay down legislation on manufacturing processes and the traceability of products, it is not legitimate to impose a standard food style for the whole of Europe solely in the interests of ‘big business’. Although the construction of the internal market is a way to strengthen Europe in the face of world competition, this must not lead to a totalitarian dogma and meddling at all levels of our home life. In particular, the diversity of Europe’s gastronomy and food customs is part of its heritage and culture, if only at the cost of local specialities foreign to the internal market. The people of Europe do not want this to be a place with standardised consumers living in a large uniform internal market. They expect major political ambition from Europe, not punctilious regulations of secondary importance.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I am extremely concerned that this affair of the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have a negative effect on public opinion. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has been accepted in its entirety by the informal Biarritz Council. Parliament has called unanimously upon the Summit to decide now whether to include the Charter in the Treaties. However, it is no simple matter, it is not easy to accept that the Community institutions which believe in this Charter can then hold back from giving it legal effect. It is a sign which could contribute to turning the public increasingly against the European project, as, sadly, is already happening even in the candidate countries. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has decided on a method and a timetable which mean that the inclusion of the Charter in the Treaties is a decisive step towards the constitutionalisation of the Union. Therefore, the Council must stop making excuses and express an opinion. A further point is the Commission reforms. It would be short-sighted to envisage a Commission structured according to criteria based on the representation of the individual States. Until we are able to feel that each Commissioner represents all the citizens, irrespective of his or her nationality, we will not be genuinely united in our project. Lastly, closer cooperation. I reiterate once again that closer cooperation must be treated as a means of harmonising differences and, therefore, of strengthening the Community spirit, and not as a means of division. Nevertheless, if it is to be effective, cooperation must not be choked by constraints. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too congratulate you, Madam President, on your new position. I am glad that we are able to welcome another woman to the podium. I was looking forward to speaking on my report on the implementation of the first phase of the Community action programme Leonardo da Vinci, but I received this morning a piece of news which obliges me to go about this differently. According to this information, the veracity of which I have no reason to doubt, the Commission has since 31 August 2001 been in possession of a report which, and I quote, indicates ‘possible irregularities and possible professional wrongdoing within the Commission’ in the implementation of the first phase of Leonardo. According to this report, both OLAF, the anti-fraud office, and also the Commission are apparently either carrying out an investigation or have reopened the investigation that was carried out in 1999-2000. A representative of the Commission confirmed to me by telephone a couple of hours ago the existence of such a report on that subject. I could not contact OLAF's director and so have been unable to verify what that authority has been doing. As, then, there are obviously significant items of information indicating deficiencies in this programme over and above those already brought to light, my report has, one might say, ceased to have a procedural basis. On behalf of the PPE group, to which I belong, I therefore ask that today's debate and vote be cancelled and that the report be referred back to the competent committee, so that I can gather appropriate information and present a report containing all documents and items of information that there actually are on the subject. I would, though, like to ask the Commissioner present to enlighten this House as to why the Commission, despite my having had a meeting with a Commission representative only yesterday, did not inform me or the honourable Members of this House about this report. I beg to observe that the withholding of reports and items of information as significant as this does not honour the principle of trustful cooperation between Parliament and the Commission, and that I personally am very disappointed by this course of action. (Applause) (The matter was referred back to the committee responsible)

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to inform Commissioner Patten that it was not the intention of the House this evening to reject the association agreement but to defer it. As to lectures in human rights, we all – regardless of our record – need to be lectured on human rights.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your comments. I do not understand your assertion that there will be no transfer of powers. If you are increasing qualified majority voting and therefore taking away the national veto, you are effectively transferring powers from the nation state to the European institutions. I am also very uncomfortable with your statement that you would only seek harmonisation of tax in areas 'linked to the single market' because we know that, if that phrase is interpreted liberally – as the European institutions are inclined to do – practically everything can be said to be linked to the single market. Are you aware, Sir, that the leader of the British Conservative Party has said that we have reached the limits of European integration? Are you aware of recent public opinion surveys showing that the British people are opposed to the transfer of further powers from the nation state to Brussels, and how will you take those facts into account?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, for her excellent report and, more importantly, her consistent and energetic efforts to achieve a consensus on the Community patent in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal market. It is those kinds of skills that we sorely miss now that she is ex-chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs. Her efforts, I have to say, have sadly not been helped by the failure of the Council to achieve an outcome in this area and, indeed, an unanimous agreement. It is clear that we need a Community patent and that it is a key element in underpinning the Lisbon agenda of encouraging EU innovation and competitiveness. But the system, as Lord Inglewood has said, has to be attractive to industry and business otherwise it will simply be an irrelevance. Industry has given the Member States, the Commission and Parliament a very clear message: it wants consistent judgments under Community jurisdiction and a common jurisprudence, in particular regarding enforcement. In particular they want a cheap and user-friendly regime. If SMEs and especially inventors are to derive any benefit from this Community patent, what they do not want is a convoluted system which will tie them up in paperwork and red tape. I illustrate this problem with the experience of one of my constituents, John Hamson, an engineer and inventor who cannot afford to employ expensive patent agents. He has a UK patent. He cites to me in letters his problems in dealing with the European Patent Office and the litany of hurdles he has to go through to obtain a European patent. I do not want to repeat them, and it is not meant as a criticism of the European Patent Office. But the fact is that he has spent a lot of money and he still has no European patent. His comments are summed up in his last letter to me some weeks ago: 'the process is clearly designed to discourage small inventors and favours large business equipped with legal and patent expertise to navigate its treacherous bureaucracy.' We owe it to industry, to small and medium-sized enterprises and individual inventors to provide a simple, affordable Community patent which in turn will help EU innovation and competitiveness. We must be able to offer industry and SMEs a better deal to ensure that the protection of intellectual property is genuinely an opportunity to create and encourage innovation. Like Lord Inglewood, I do not believe that the Council has the answers to these problems. It will fall to Commissioner Bolkestein to try to find the solution. However, we have had a rapporteur who has made a Herculean effort to try to achieve this. It is no fault of hers that we have not got the right consensus, but I have to say that there is no compromise to be achieved on languages. Therefore I leave it to Commissioner Bolkestein to try to find a solution that will satisfy some of my constituents back in the north-west of England.

Political group: PSE
I wonder, since Mr Da Costa has been listening to these remarks from the back of the Chamber, whether Mr Kinnock could confirm that the Commission supports the view explicitly stated by Mr Da Costa today and in the recent statement by the Presidency on behalf of the heads of government. Does the Commission support the Council?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I feel that the Brok report provides an excellent overview and a method for future similar operations. With regard to the current operation – enlargement – the sooner it happens the better. The politicians of the new democracies, although in some cases the public rather less so, are under the impression that outside Europe it is darker and rainier, but many small, developed countries, including Slovenia, are wont to succumb to fears and see complete sovereignty as a way of constraining the globalising force of the strong and the economically aggressive. I hope that the Brok report will help to set them straight and convince them that they are progressing along the right road. It appears that the general issues have already been dealt with and I would therefore like, if I may, just to focus on Slovenia. Ultimately, as far as Slovenia is concerned, there are two sensitive points in particular. Slovenia, considered to be among the best prepared candidate countries, is making every endeavour to complete the adoption of the chapters of the European acquis. In practice, however, the problems revealed are the same as those highlighted by other reports. In some sectors, the efforts are yielding the desired results, but there are delays in others. Ljubljana looks set to achieve the four Maastricht criteria on target, reducing inflation, and that is a considerable achievement. There seems to be a certain amount of progress in areas such as the computerisation of the land register and the privatisation of banks, particularly the privatisation of banks, which is an indication of greater openness towards other countries. The computerisation of the land register, on the other hand, should reduce the number of civil court cases attributable to denationalisation. The European Union has been urging Slovenia to speed up the procedures and make good the delays in this field for years now. Brussels, for its part, understands Slovenia’s concern that it will enter the Union under unfavourable conditions or even as a net contributor. The support for agriculture, which is not sufficiently long-term, does not provide sufficient reassurance. It would appear that Slovenia’s argument that stable mechanisms need to be found for the Structural Funds, direct payments and so forth is falling on sympathetic ears.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, in these two minutes I would like to concentrate on a related matter that will play an important part in the Barcelona Summit. Mr Prodi, the President of the Commission, has mentioned that the biotechnology action plan proposed by the Commission will also be on the agenda. I believe it is a good thing that this will be discussed in Barcelona, as biotechnology offers opportunities for growth and employment. I think it right that the Commission should be advancing so courageously on this issue. I will state openly that most applications of genetic technology and biotechnology throw up no fundamental ethical problems, and so biotechnology should be supported, and, in that we save resources by its astute use, biotechnology can also make a contribution towards sustainable development. However, Mr President of the Commission, there are also well-founded concerns. I get the impression that, in the Commission's action plan, these well-founded concerns tend to be presented as a problem of acceptance, so that all that is needed is enough talk and public information and there will then no longer be a problem. Parliament, though, has always emphasised that there are also requisite boundaries, boundaries that are necessary in themselves and which we have to lay down politically in order to protect health and the environment, but also on ethical grounds. For we are no longer the European Economic Community; we are the European Union, and so we need common values, with the consequences that derive from them. I therefore consider it false of the Commission to deal with stem cell research in a very wholesale way in their document, which does not sufficiently distinguish the ethical problems. Mr Aznar has done things very differently in recent days. He has explicitly aired the ethical problems. I would like to call on the Council and the Commission to give their attention to these problems. I wish to ask my fellow Members to support Amendment No 27 to the Jackson resolution, in which we have precisely and even-handedly dealt with this balance between opportunity and risk and call on the Council to act appropriately.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as you know many of us are very concerned with the prestige and reputation of this Parliament and for that reason I rise in connection with the procedures concerning the lifting of Mr Berlusconi's immunity. At the last meeting of the Conference of Presidents on 5 April this matter was referred to the Constitutional Affairs Committee and Madame Garaud was invited to represent us vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities. I understand that Madame Garaud cannot for the time being undertake that mission for personal reasons, which are fully understandable and have my deepest sympathy. Nonetheless, the matter has become all the more urgent because of three new developments: first, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, using the same procedures as us to waive parliamentary immunity, appears to be moving much faster within a deadline of only two months, and the European Parliament could find itself in the unfortunate situation of being left well behind. Secondly, the Spanish Government has transmitted a new request to the Italian authorities without waiting for the opinion of the Council of State of Spain, which is ostensibly the reason why it has not yet replied to the European Parliament. Thirdly, again according to the press, the Spanish anti-corruption prosecutor, Carlos Castresana, has written asking you to investigate the delay. In these circumstances, do you agree that it is all the more urgent to proceed rapidly? Do you intend to ensure that the mission to Spain takes place as soon as possible, if necessary with a different envoy? Would you give us a deadline for this – would it be a matter of weeks, months or years?

Political group: PSE
We, the Swedish and Danish Social Democrats, have today voted in favour of the EU budget for 2001. The budget will allow the EU to implement its priority activities whilst, at the same time, maintaining budgetary discipline. The EU’s budget for next year is one of the smallest relative to the size of the Member States’ GDP. The budget for 2001 is largely based on a compromise between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which we support. Parliament has succeeded in driving through a number of important prioritisations – including increased efforts in the struggle against unemployment and poverty, a number of important environmental and equality issues, etc. We have voted against the right’s attacks on the LIFE programme and the European Women’s Lobby. We have thus found the funds required in order to be able to provide strong support to the reconstruction and democratisation of the Balkans, including now in Serbia. However, the need for a long-term solution for future budget years remains. We are critical of the scope and orientation of the EU’s agriculture policy. This needs to undergo more extensive reform in the future, partly so as to provide room for the enlargement of the EU. The EU’s agriculture policy is far too expensive. Moreover, we are highly critical of the over-production of agricultural produce and of the use of information funds by the EU to sell this surplus. We are also very critical of the extensive support given to tobacco production which, in our opinion, directly conflicts with the EU’s heightened ambitions in the area of public health. We would also like to emphasise how important it is that the implementation of the EU’s budget is made more efficient, so that we can get a grip on the problem of the substantial backlog that exists in certain areas. The budgetary system, along with the methods for openness, auditing and political control, need to be improved and modernised quickly. We Scandinavian Social Democrats have also succeeded in driving through a proposal for increased support to local and regional cooperation in the Baltic region, which now amounts to EUR 16 million. Parliament has also increased the budget for twin town cooperation, which we consider to be an important programme for promoting local cooperation within the Union.

Political group: PSE