GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, from what you have said today and you also said in Cape Town, I imagine that Spain is about to ratify it. In any case, given the importance of this Association Agreement between the ACP countries and the European Union, and as two years have now passed since the signing of the Cotonou Agreement, I should like to know whether – apart from what the Member States that have ratified it – only four of them, as the President-in-Office of the Council has pointed out – may be doing – the Council is thinking of organising a campaign to inform our public opinion in Europe, which hardly knows what this Cotonou Association Agreement is about. The same cannot be said of the ACP countries, 44 of which have ratified it, as he has indicated. Does the Council intend to make the most of this Presidency and the current situation in the ACP countries to carry out this awareness campaign?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, while General Wesley Clark a certified, as yet unindicted war criminal testified at the so-called International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in absolute secrecy, the Deputy Registrar of the same 'Tribunal' has issued a decision banning practically all contact between the former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and the outside world. A similar decision was taken for Mr Vojislav Seselj. Both are candidates on the list of the Socialist Party of Serbia for the elections on 28 December. Whatever opinion one might have on the Milosevic case, it is more than obvious that the ban is a punitive measure in order to prevent Mr Milosevic from exercising his right of freedom of speech and his right, pursuant to Serbian law, to stand as a candidate in the electoral process. Thus the Deputy Registrar's decision is a blunt intervention in the Serbian elections in favour of those who sold their country to the imperialist powers and an attempt to deny the people of Serbia the right to decide their own fate. Last but not least, it is a clear threat to the civil rights of all of us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, today, in Germany, a man is appearing before the court who immigrated illegally from the former East Germany to West Germany. He has quite rightly been brought before the court, not because he immigrated illegally but because he grassed on illegal immigrants from the former East Germany to the state security police. In my opinion, it should still be possible for people who betray refugees or illegal immigrants to the police to be prosecuted. Why? Both the Commission proposal and the report admit that illegal entry can lead to an application for asylum being approved. Yet this is tantamount to admitting, albeit unintentionally, that, for most people, it is no longer possible to enter the EU legally. This confirms, also unintentionally, the criticism made by the UNHCR of the EU and its isolationist policy towards refugees. That is why the promised immunity from prosecution does not help refugees who are accepted as asylum seekers, because they must then betray the people who were actually able to help them in their application for asylum. The conclusion is that separating commercial from humanitarian facilitation serves no useful purpose because the policy of isolation is increasingly being promoted and aid for refugees is becoming more of a financial burden. If a decision cannot be reached to dismantle the fortress that is the EU, then at least this report must be rejected and aid for refugees must be promoted both in terms of commercial and humanitarian facilitation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I believe it is absolutely right to comment that we do not need additional competences where taxation is concerned, but what we do need to do, in my view, is consider how we can develop the various topics more effectively. To quote but one example: the country of origin principle in matters of VAT. Would it not be possible to start by making adjustments to the current VAT systems, so that harmonisation systems can be implemented more efficiently at European level? Or another example: double taxation, which causes so many problems. My question is this: will the Commission’s work programme include a schedule for this, or how do you intend to proceed?

Political group: PPE-DE
I too am one of the members who have huge hopes of the Swedish Presidency on the question of human rights, because it is the presidency of a country which has shown through its deeds that it has tremendous compassion and that it is revolted by opportunism when it comes to human rights issues. And I should like to say that the President-in-Office's 'yes, but' stance worries me somewhat saying that the Council will continue to monitor developments, that there may have been some unfortunate incidents, but Turkey has given its assurances that nothing is amiss. I should like to ask the President-in-Office if, in the wake of this tragedy which we have watched unfold, with over 60 officially dead, with maltreatment, with people who may be in prison because they spoke in their mother tongue, with some 200 prisoners continuing their hunger strike, the Swedish Presidency will publicly take an initiative and demand explanations and undertakings from the Turkish Government and, likewise, if the Swedish Presidency will finally take an interest in securing the release of Leyla Zana, the MP awarded the Sakharov prize by this Parliament;

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, we cannot allow the Johannesburg Summit to be just an event to mark the ten years since Rio de Janeiro. There is little to celebrate, anyway, since over these ten years the signs of unsustainability have got worse. Rather, the Johannesburg Conference gives us the opportunity to start all over again, making a world-wide commitment to a development model that blends the economic dimension with both the social dimension and the environmental dimension. In any case, there is a further difficulty associated with the Rio de Janeiro Summit. This time, we shall be even more alone in the leadership of a global agreement. The political agenda that the European Union defines will, therefore, be critical for the success of the conference. I believe that both the Commission communication and the Papayannakis and Lannoye reports contribute to making this a good agenda. There are, however, certain paragraphs and a few amendments that, in our view, take away some of the objectivity and detachment of Parliament’s resolution – I mean the Tobin tax and writing off the debt of the developing countries. Even so, the PPE Group will vote for the final resolution. We hope the following objectives will be achieved at the Johannesburg Summit. First of all, it should mark the coming into force of the Kyoto Protocol. For this to happen, some countries need to speed up their ratification of the Protocol – Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia. Secondly, the political conditions must be created for the United States to rejoin the joint effort in the environmental field. Thirdly, an initiative is needed to green the economy by internalising environmental costs, dissociating economic growth from intensive resource use and focusing on cleaner technologies. Fourthly, we hope that the Summit will provide joint answers to global problems and that, as happened in Rio de Janeiro, when the foundations were laid for the Conference on Climate Change, Johannesburg will also lay the foundations for protocols and new institutions in other environmental areas, such as water, for instance. Fifthly, we hope a boost will be given to international governance and institutional reform. It is not possible to create an Internet for sustainability if the nodes in this net are obsolescent. Lastly, Mr President, we hope that this Summit will not content itself with vague intentions but will set out timetables, goals and policies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when the EU’s fortress policy fails, then we end up with shipwrecks such as that which occurred in France, and again in Greece, and which will probably claim many more lives. The question is: if we really want more freedom, security and justice, what must we do in order to prevent this policy from claiming even more lives? First, freedom is achieved by giving people a free choice of where they wish to live. Secondly, security is given to people by pressing a passport into their hand and giving them the legal wherewithal to set up home wherever they want. This results in more justice and greater fairness because it is the global economic conditions which the industrialised countries have forced on the world which turn many people into refugees in the first place. Which is why I call on the Council to take prevention seriously. A uniform modus operandi – yes, start a legalisation initiative now, because that is the only consistent policy against racism.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings sets out the guidelines according to which the Commission is to assess whether a concentration between undertakings is or is not compatible with the common market. Instead of the current model, which mainly concentrates upon whether the companies would acquire a dominant position, we recommend a more flexible model (what is known as the SLC test), according to which a concentration between undertakings must be prohibited if it may contribute to a weakening of competition or the creation of a monopoly.

Political group: PSE
We, the Swedish Social Democrats behind this explanation of vote, would like to present our motive for voting against Amendment No 17, regarding Article 2 b, which is that the definition of advertising cannot be implemented under Swedish law. The definition of advertising as commercial communications cannot be reconciled with the Constitution of Sweden/Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. We would rather see use of the definition 'commercial advertising', which would allow us to continue to exempt tobacco advertising from freedom of expression without changing the constitution. As the term commercial communications is a broader concept which also includes product placement, it conflicts with the Swedish Constitution. The term commercial advertising does not include editorial texts, opinion advertising, product placement, artistic expression and all other forms of marketing which are not part of an advertisement. It is therefore not possible under Swedish law to ban tobacco advertising in ‘commercial communications’ or ‘commercial statements’ without first changing the constitution. In addition, we believe that the public health perspective must be given a clearer and stronger role with regard to the internal market. When it comes to weighing up competition against public health, we believe that health must be prioritised over economic interests.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I basically support the Commission proposal and the reports by Mrs Grossetête and Mrs Müller. However, there are a few points on which I differ. One point was not mentioned in the debate at all, although I believe it to be very important: the Commission has proposed that prescriptions would also be required for medicinal products under the decentralised procedure. I believe that this is a step in the right direction, but we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think we need to be careful about ending up in a situation where all medical products that are at present available over the counter require prescriptions, because that would certainly create problems for consumers and would impose unreasonable costs on the health system. I therefore urge you to support Amendment No 151, which I have tabled jointly with several of my colleagues. The second important point has already been mentioned many times, but we cannot consider it often enough. We need to come to an arrangement that is acceptable for small and medium-sized pharmaceutical companies. We cannot adopt legislation that, ultimately, only global players like Pfizer can comply with. We need rules that are appropriate for SMEs. In this connection there are a number of important issues, such as the amendment tabled by Mr Nisticò. Three years' data exclusivity in the event of a new indication is something that SMEs are perhaps in a better position to implement than data exclusivity for a totally new substance. In committee, I spoke against the pilot project on information and advertising, as I simply cannot understand why the information provided should be extended for three special indications but with far tighter rules in other areas. We need information for all indications and all diseases, and advertising for prescription medicines should be totally ruled out. That is why I agree with the conclusion reached by the committee. However, the committee overshot the mark on a couple of points, so that information that the pharmaceutical industry is allowed to provide now would in future no longer be permissible. We need to sort that out in tomorrow's vote. In conclusion I wish to call on the Commission to bring forward a proposal on medical product safety for children as soon as possible. I know that the Commission officials here today and the Commissioner himself regard this as a very important subject, but we have already been waiting too long for a definite legislative proposal. I urge you to present one before the year is out. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I stand here as an Austrian Member of Parliament, but above all as someone who has always stood up for the environment and as a Vienna city councillor with responsibility for transport who believed that economic and traffic growth should not come at the expense of the environment and health. Perhaps we have sometimes presented the transit rules as an Austrian privilege or a special arrangement for Austria. It was a special arrangement, but one with a particular pioneering function for Europe as a whole. This transit rule has brought about a change in the heavy goods vehicle fleet in the whole of Europe. It has been modernised, it has been made, if you like, more ecological, that is more friendly to the environment. That is the very thing that is now being prematurely ended. The rapporteur, who is unfortunately not present – it is interesting that this is the second time we have discussed the ecopoint system here without the rapporteur present; his predecessor was not present either; which shows how seriously it is sometimes taken – at least at one stage made a proposal that still gave an incentive to change. But then it disappeared again. The ‘transitional system’ we now have no longer contains any incentive to change over from more environmentally harmful to more environmentally friendly lorries. And that is the greatest drawback, the biggest problem we in Austria have with this system. Reference is always being made to the infrastructure charging directive. But I can already hear the arguments over that directive. If we look at Mr Cocilovo’s proposal, it is clear that he does not even want what the Commission is proposing. We are put off from one proposal to the next. Rather than do that, we should make a general rule. I am grateful for the rule, but I do not think it is sufficient. But when this Parliament and certain groups and certain Members in particular cut it back even more and do not want even to accept the Commission’s proposal for a minor diversion from road to rail, then in my opinion there is no longer much point to it. That is my position. To conclude, I am asking my fellow Members to reject it tomorrow because it is a sham. I ask my fellow Members to really think again and to say No to a solution that is only pretending to be one. Austria needs a real solution and that is not what we have here. I hope we shall get more support over the infrastructure charging directive than we have had in this case. (Restrained applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must confess when I hear phrases about Europe being overrun and overwhelmed it fills me with absolute horror about the quality of the debate in this Parliament. However, this debate has puzzled me somewhat and therefore I would like to put a question to Mr Sasi and Commissioner Verheugen, namely: What is the difference between what is going to happen in Helsinki and what happened in Luxembourg? In Luxembourg we confirmed Turkey’s eligibility for accession to the EU. I understand we are talking about confirmation of Turkey’s candidate status in Helsinki. However, whenever I ask Commissioner van den Broek if Turkey is a candidate, he says the Commission regards Turkey as already being a candidate. So what exactly is new in Helsinki? All candidate countries of course must meet the Copenhagen criteria and Turkey is surely no different. None of the applicant countries meet the Copenhagen criteria yet, otherwise by definition they would be members now, so what is the difference with Turkey? Meeting the Copenhagen criteria is not a static process – it is a dynamic process. We are working with the other applicant countries to help them meet the Copenhagen criteria. Human rights problems in Latvia and Slovakia would never have been dealt with without the positive prospects of European Union membership and Turkey should be treated in the same way. We have to be actively involved in order to improve the implementation of the European strategy. We need to harmonise Turkey’s legislation to the acquis and we need to work with Turkey to build a civil society. We cannot do that unless we do what we did with the other Central and Eastern European countries and are prepared to spend the money we have promised: that is the crucial factor. We have to become involved as we promised to do in the Customs Union and in the association agreement, and we must work to make Turkey ready for European Union membership, just like all the other applicant countries.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, thank you for that statement. We will send someone to Colombia to see what we can do as a European Group and we hope, within a few weeks, to have a different option than simply to deplore that our candidate has been kidnapped.

Political group: Verts-ALE
President-in-Office, thank you for the answer. I am, of course, very happy that the new common position has been established by the Council and that it has strengthened the position as compared with the past. I prefer to use the name Burma rather than Myanmar since the people of Burma and now Aung San Suu Kyi, the legitimate leader in Burma, do not refer to it as Myanmar. I should prefer it if Parliament avoided the term Myanmar also. I have to say to the President-in-Office that the net impact of the various measures the European Union has imposed since 1996 has been very limited: the Burmese have not entered into dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratic forces in Burma remain as outside the whole process as ever. Whilst I express my support, one thing still puzzles me. Whilst we take these measures, there is no progress on the pressure that some of us in Parliament have been trying to exert on the Council in relation to the need for sanctions – sanctions, of course, which Aung San Suu Kyi has consistently called for. Related to that, we continue to oppose the Massachusetts Federal laws which impose very effective sanctions on Burma. We are waiting for the US to decide against these Federal laws. Will that remain the case? If the US decides in favour of Massachusetts, will the European Union then reintroduce our opposition in the World Trade Organisation to these measures taken in Massachusetts?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you to reject Amendment No 5 as this is the only way for us to ensure that the regulation will come into force immediately on first reading, thus establishing a legal basis for further developments from the coming January. So please reject Amendment No 5. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0447/2003) by Olga Zrihen Zaari, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on promoting gender equality in development cooperation (COM(2003) 465 – C5-0367/2003 – 2003/0176(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0459/2003) by Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters extending to the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 the validity of the Protocol setting fishing opportunities and a financial contribution as provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire on fishing off the coast of Côte d’Ivoire (COM(2003) 556 – C5-0458/2003 – 2003/0219(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on the outcome of the European Council meeting held in Brussels on 12-13 December 2003 (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(3) on arms sales to China (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Report (A5-0465/2003) by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on coexistence between genetically modified crops and conventional and organic crops (2003/2098(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0451/2003) by Uma Aaltonen, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on petition 842/2001 concerning the effects of discriminatory treatment afforded to persons with Multiple Sclerosis, within the European Union (2003/2173 (INI)) Before the vote: President. – I should like to point out to the House that we are joined today by Louise McVay, the woman who first brought this matter to our attention. Along with Mr Gemelli and other colleagues I had the chance to meet Louise McVay last night. It is wonderful that this Parliament, as this time, can establish in a report like this that, where there are active citizens with real interests and issues, we have an open door to care and to listen. It is an entirely appropriate vote at this time. (Loud applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to draw your attention to a certain written statement that my colleague, Mr Ebner, is putting forward. He is proposing that the Directive on birds should be amended to take better account of the principle of subsidiarity. I would like to tell you and all my colleagues that this statement is being marketed in a way that makes it appear favourably disposed towards birds, as promoting their welfare, but I can tell you that that is not the case, and that this will worsen the situation of migratory birds in the European Union. I would appeal to everyone that you at least make sure you know what you are signing if you sign this petition. I fully support the letter written by my colleague, Dorette Corbey, which she has sent to our colleagues regarding this matter: there should be no misleading marketing regarding this written statement.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted for Mr Imbeni's report as well, for the European Union is certainly doing something extremely important in organising humanitarian aid for areas which have been struck by natural disasters or the effects of war. Pensioners, whom I have the honour and the pleasure of representing, are among those who are most willing on these occasions to go and help the less fortunate victims of disasters. But what benefit has Europe drawn from this initiative which, among other things, cost EUR 813 million in 1999 alone? Moreover, I would call upon the Commission to increase its expenditure, for it is extremely important for Europe to maintain a presence in the world and to give a high profile to its presence through, among other things, a symbol and greater publicity of this important activity.

Political group: PPE-DE