GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we are heading for the unification of Europe. This is a natural consequence of the winds of freedom having swept away the closed borders of Europe and the insurmountable antagonisms, as well as the suspicion, the Soviet system and the Communist dictatorships. I am convinced that 2004 will go down in history as 1989 has already done. The work of enlargement must proceed further, however. The new Member States must be treated with respect. The principle of subsidiarity must serve more clearly as a guide to cooperation as the EU grows. National self-determination must be the same in the new Member States as in the old. What we do not want the EU to interfere in where our own countries are concerned, the EU must not interfere in where the new Member States are concerned, either. The enlargement process must not cease after 2004 and 2007. We already know that new applications for EU membership are on the way. At the Helsinki European Council in 1999, Turkey was recognised as a candidate country for EU membership. Three years later, the European Parliament cannot now, as some amendments demand, try to change this. Nothing has happened to justify such a measure, so the basic conditions governing an international, confidence-building project cannot suddenly be changed. It would be unworthy of a generous and responsible European Parliament in this way to change the basic conditions set for Turkey. Turkey has made great progress in order to be able to embark upon the negotiations with a view to EU membership. There are things that remain to be done, and it is for Turkey to decide whether it wishes to continue. I am nonetheless convinced that, in the future, a democratic Turkish society governed by the rule of law may be crucially important to a better understanding between the West and the Muslim world. Such friends are valuable at this time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, on behalf of my group I welcome the tone of the Council's contribution and the content of the Commission's contribution. It is early days yet for us to have a definitive idea of how this process will develop, but I do believe that you, Madam President, have been excessively cautious and I would like to raise one or two questions with you and invite you to respond to them at the end of the debate. You have said that you look forward to seeing the European Parliament contribution and, of course, the resolution in May. I join you in that. You have said that you can see advantages and disadvantages in the convention method and I am aware that many in the Council would share that view. Could you please expand on that and not leave it in suspended animation? Part of the purpose of this dialogue is for us to seek rational solutions if people perceive disadvantages in what we propose. So please could you let us have your assessment of the pros and cons to which you have referred. You have referred to the four dimensions in the Nice annex, the debate on competencies, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments. You also, if I understood the translation correctly, believe that the Treaty should be simplified but without changing its content. Is it possible to look at competencies, the role of national parliaments and the role of the charter and not change the content of the Treaty? That seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. Like the other institutions, the European Parliament is currently considering how things might be presented for the next Intergovernmental Conference. I and my group strongly believe that the convention method could be adopted. This Parliament has a democratic legitimacy. It is rooted and founded in the European treaties. We are not a mendicant seeking alms at the European door. We have a right – in fact a duty – of participation. I believe the convention method open to the Member States, national parliaments, the Commission and perhaps ideally also to candidate states can provide a very good framework – not necessarily a single-choice menu, but a framework of rational and consistent choices – and an Intergovernmental Conference can then be invited to proceed. Finally, without anticipating the future too much, my own group feels sufficiently strongly about this participation that if Parliament was inappropriately excluded or diminished in its institutional role we would consider recommending that it should not give any opinion on an Intergovernmental Conference. That would be a difficult decision and I hope it will not be necessary but it is a constitutional requirement under Article 48 that this House should give an opinion before an IGC even though, regrettably, we have no right of assent after an IGC. That is something we should note at this stage because full democratic participation is vital. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Mulder for the very collegiate and cooperative way in which he has worked with other committees, and Mrs Gill for the same reason. The budget lines dealt with by my committee are the most complex of any committee. We cover something like 120 budget lines with reference to ten different directorates-general. Because of that complexity, plus the changes in nomenclature, the activity-based budgeting and enlargement, it has been a difficult task to give an overall view. I would like to thank the Commission and those staff in its directorates-general who have been patient in their explanations and have explained their rationale for preparing the preliminary draft budget. I cannot offer the same praise to the Council of Ministers, because in our committee we have seen a whole succession of very large cuts with no rationale whatsoever provided as to why they should have taken place. I find it impossible to work on that basis. You cannot have a dialogue when one side does not explain its reasoning for what it is doing. There may be some sense behind the suggestions, but it is not at all clear to us. Let me take as one example the preparatory action for security research, of enormous interest to the citizens of Europe. Why has that been cut? I am delighted that Mr Mulder is prepared to support us in reinstating the money which was suggested for this action, which many of us on our committee think is important. We want an explanation about Chernobyl. We lay great emphasis on SMEs, as you will see, and I look forward to some sort of rational discussion with the Council about its motivation for making cuts which appear to contradict every policy of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe the debate we are holding is not exclusively an Italian one. I am from Valencia and, historically, the Valencians have close relations with the Italians – in fact two Valencians (Calixtus III and Rodrigo Borgia) were Popes in Italy during the Renaissance – but I believe that this is a fundamental and European issue and I would like to thank Commissioner Patten and the rapporteur, Mrs Boogerd-Quaak, for their speeches. I believe that, by means of subsidiarity and also the Commission's initiative, we should regulate and act on the structuring of pluralism, the media and, above all, neutrality. I come from a European region – Valencia – which has not seen neutrality in the public media. I am not talking now about Televisión Española, which is a flagrant case, but about Canal Nou, Valencian television, which is a textbook example of how a public television station is used for party political purposes. Neutrality means not being party political, nor being subject to governmental use, to manipulation of information or being used by a political party in the case of a public media organisation, as in the case of Valencian television. I therefore believe that, by means of the Commission's initiatives, we should put forward initiatives to legislate to create advisory councils. In this regard, we admire models of public television such as the BBC and we would like, as Valencians, both Televisión Española and Canal Nou, our Valencian television, to be neutral, and, in the future, to have a neutral television company which gives space to all parties. A party such as mine, which is the third biggest municipal political force in our country, has no presence on our television and I believe this issue is fundamental to European integration.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this is another case where confusion has arisen because the amendments distributed before the vote do not quite correspond to the amendments contained in the report because there was a linguistic correction in between, but Mr Wuermeling is right. We should stick to the same formula that we have already adopted so as to have consistency in the text.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have another small correction to the adopted text as a result of Amendment No 16. Amendment No 16 deletes Article 18(2). Article 6(9) of the common position makes reference to Article 18(2); this article must therefore be changed if Amendment No 16 is adopted.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I requested the floor for an oral amendment to this Amendment No 1. We agree with Amendment No 1 from the UEN Group, but ask, if the House is in agreement, for the following words to be added: 'European Parliament Resolution on the Prestige oil tanker disaster off the coast of Galicia'. I believe this would be more precise and it appears in this form in the agenda for this sitting. I would like to add the text 'off the coast of Galicia'. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) Before the vote on Amendment No 2:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the European Union has also helped to create this crisis the European Union must therefore play its part in managing the crisis. But when I say 'the European Union', I do not mean the Commission or the Council or Parliament but I am essentially referring to our Member States as well, which make up the EU. Please do not misunderstand me: no one can point the finger at anyone else and pretend that he himself has had nothing to do with this whole sorry affair. The European agricultural policy in its current form, with all its weaknesses and errors, was created and shaped by all the Member States and parties of all political hues. So we must all join together to change it. That does not alter the fact that at present, we face a situation in which we have to manage the crisis on the old playing field in line with the old rules. We cannot ignore this fact. As yet, we have no new rules and we have no reformed agricultural policy, although that is what we are calling for. Of course, Mr Ferber is right when he distinguishes between short, medium and long-term issues. That is quite correct. But anyone who is now asked for funding and support for the expenditure necessary to manage the crisis has not only a right but also a duty to call for the much-needed reforms. We have a programme which runs until 2006, with a review in 2002. But we already know that the review will reveal that there is a need for a fundamental reform of the agricultural policy. So our vote in favour of this supplementary budget is a vote coupled with a clear statement. And we will remind you of that very soon.

Political group: PSE
chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, it is exactly the same point. Four amendments have been voted which are in addition to what the committee voted. Our amendments say they are compatible. Unless we can get an assurance right now that they are, then we need to change the wording to 'not'. Can I ask you to follow the same procedure? This will apply to all the other reports on this item and will save me from constantly getting up.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are all aware of the tragic situation in Mozambique, and it is a matter of the utmost urgency to provide the necessary aid so that the government can respond to the most urgent needs of its people and succeed in reconstructing the vast regions where destruction has been almost total. It is essential that the Commission and the Member States commit themselves decisively to all the support actions, including financial aid for materials and equipment, technical assistance for mine-clearance in the areas of the country where this problem still applies, support for holding an International Conference to mobilise as much emergency aid as possible and obtain the economic resources necessary for the recovery of Mozambique’s economy, which has been so cruelly affected by the floods. It is equally important that all the countries cancel Mozambique’s debt in full so as to facilitate its recovery. We therefore call for total commitment in active solidarity with Mozambique from everyone, including this Parliament, because we think it is important to send a delegation so that Members can find out more about the situation and the country’s reconstruction process. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too should like to thank everyone who has been involved in this year’s budgetary procedure. I have already expressed my gratitude to the Commissioner and her officials, and, having already mentioned the excellent cooperation with the Italian Presidency and before that, the Greek Presidency, I should finally like to express openly my admiration for the qualities of the secretariat of this House’s Committee on Budgets and of its chairman, who has guided this procedure in a very inspiring manner. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, we are establishing the minimum insurance requirements to be fulfilled by air companies and operators flying through our airspace or providing services destined for or departing from the European Union, in order to guarantee their liability for possible damage which may be caused to passengers, luggage, cargo, mail or third parties. In order to successfully achieve such a laudable objective, we must not allow the Regulation we are approving to contain imprecise definitions or confused concepts, since that could lead to situations in which there is no cover or protection, either for the consumer using the air service or for third parties suffering damage in the event of incidents. We therefore propose several amendments, with a view to better defining in the regulatory text the terms 'passenger', 'insurance' and 'flight', compensation to third parties, where appropriate, and we also advocate the inclusion amongst the risks insured of other contingencies, accidents and fortuitous incidents, as well as the risks caused by acts of war, terrorism, kidnap, sabotage, hijack and social or industrial disturbances. Furthermore, we propose that companies and operators registered in a third country, that is, outside the European Union, can be considered as conforming to the requirements of this regulation we are discussing, provided that they produce an insurance certificate, issued under appropriate regulatory conditions by any insurer authorised to operate legally in accordance with Community law. We also propose that, in all cases of aircraft operated under a leasing system, with or without crews, for whatever time period, it should always be the companies or operators carrying out flights who should fulfil the minimum insurance requirements. Finally, we ask the Commission to take the initiative to harmonise legislation on insurance against risks in all the Union’s air terminals, so that we do not end up in a situation where only possible damage suffered during flights is covered, but also any damage during the rest of the time that users remain within the air transport service chain.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted against the Cornillet report on citizens' rights in Europe because I feel that the rights of elderly people are not respected in Europe, at least in many of the 15 States of the European Union. The rights of the elderly are not respected when we become ill, completely incapacitated and lose our self-sufficiency: if we are lucky we are cared for by our families at home but, if not, we have to go into care homes which do what they can but, in any case, we have to pay for the care out of our own pockets with our own savings, if we have enough, and that is after we have given our work and paid taxes and contributions to the State all our lives. Europe must take effective, practical action to uphold the rights of the most incapacitated elderly people too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are currently witnessing a disturbing development in Russia which the Chechen war was the catalyst for. We have repeatedly pointed out in this House that the Chechen war was a particularly bloody form of election campaign and seizure of power for Mr Putin. When one considers what Mr Putin has done in the few weeks since his velvet putsch on New Year’s day in Russia, then one will see that not only did he step up the genocidal activities in Chechnya, he also initiated changes in Russian domestic policy that cause one to fear the worst. The Babitsky case illustrates perfectly how press freedom is under serious threat in Russia – which is, after all, a Member of the Council of Europe, indeed its largest Member, and which has joined forces with the European Union in a partnership agreement. Mr Putin said himself that Mr Babitsky was taken into custody by the Russian secret service on his orders. He said himself that he made the case a matter for decision at the highest level. He maintained that he has the case in hand. Then we hear that he has allegedly handed this case, which was supposedly a matter for decision at the highest level, a Russian citizen that is, over to people that he has declared to be dangerous terrorists. What kind of state hands its own citizens over to people it deems to be dangerous terrorists? Then after the initial confusion the Chechens issued a clear denial. Russian civil rights campaigners and the Russian democratic forces who stand in opposition are making it quite clear that Mr Babitsky is obviously still in the custody of the FSB. There is a great deal still to be explained about this case. This House must urge the Russian Government in no uncertain terms, firstly to launch an immediate inquiry into what has happened to Mr Babitsky and secondly to intervene in order to secure his release and ensure that press freedom and the rule of law are not compromised still further.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, it is not a case of barbarians on one side and civilised people on the other, of reactionaries on one side and progressives on the other, of the moral on one side and the immoral on the other. The debate should proceed in an atmosphere of mutual respect, and on that score we should thank both Mrs Van Lancker and the shadow rapporteur from our Group, Mrs Müller, for the way in which they have worked together. The fact remains, however, that this debate is out of time. Even Mrs Van Lancker recognises this in her report, and I quote, ‘... the legal or regulatory policy concerning reproductive health falls within the Member States’ sphere of competence’. The proposed resolution that we are discussing today, no doubt authorised, wrongly, by Parliament’s Bureau in the context of our institution’s right to take the initiative, does not seem to me to be well-founded. It seems to be even less well-founded if we remember that just one month ago – and we really are being paradoxical here – we voted in favour of the Lamassoure report on the division of competencies into what falls within the remit of the Community and what is the responsibility of the Member States, and we should apply what we voted for to ourselves. That is the first reason why I shall not be voting in favour of this report. My second reason is that I do not know how we can impose standards in every area. There are a certain number of cultural differences, but what is a good standard? Let me give you an example. In France, we have introduced legislation governing the morning-after pill. Suppose we were to take French legislation as our basis. It is entirely unsatisfactory. Why is that? It is because at the present time the morning-after pill is authorised in France and is distributed exclusively in schools. It cannot be authorised in hospitals. Yet schools operate for 150 days out of 365. Shall we take other legislation as our basis? We shall still find that there is something missing from the framework. What, then, is the framework for good practice? The third point, which really concerns me, is that I believe that at the present time, the combination of the recommended longer period during which abortion will be allowed and the progress being made in science which means that potential anomalies in unborn children can be diagnosed increasingly early, plus the progress being made in bio-ethics, carries with it a risk. A certain number of doctors, and by no means the least progressive – I am thinking, in the case of France, for example, of Professor Nisand – would agree with me on this point, and the risk is that this combination of circumstances might lead, tomorrow, either directly or indirectly, somewhere, to a system of State eugenics which would prejudice the founding of a peoples’ Europe which is what we are all hoping to achieve.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have no objection to a separate vote, but I agree with the order established since that was what was approved in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
British Labour Members fully support a Charter of Fundamental Rights which makes visible citizens’ rights across the EU. However, we are at a very early stage in the process of determining the Charter. It is therefore too early to say what should be legally binding. This decision will be made at a later stage as recognised by the report itself in Paragraph 6. That Paragraph also states that any legally binding status recognises that Fundamental Rights are indivisible by making the Charter applicable to all the European Union's institutions and bodies and all its policies. This is a recognisable aim which British Labour Members would support. As the final Charter text is not available, we are supporting the Charter in principle but awaiting the final version. This is a complex process which needs clarity and precision at all stages to ensure that the end result is a positive and visible step forward for people in all EU countries.

Political group: PSE