GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to stress two points. On the one hand, that Ecofin’s proposals represent a step backwards with regard to the current situation in accordance with the Treaty of Nice. And on the other, that the financial perspectives must be accepted by the European Parliament and that Ecofin's proposals simply establish a consultation with Parliament. Democracy is also a way to manage disagreements and today the European Parliament has the final word on more than 60% of the annual budget in the event that no agreement is reached with the Council. In Ecofin’s proposals a kind of automatic mechanism according to which the lowest quantity proposed is accepted replaces the political will of the institutions. Ecofin’s proposals destroy the balance achieved in the Convention, and the European Parliament, knowing this, accepted a formalisation of the financial perspectives in the Constitution, restricting its own budgetary powers, because its power to reject the multiannual framework and to be able to decide against the Council's position by a very high majority of its Members, in the event of a disagreement in relation to the annual budgetary procedure, was recognised. Ecofin's proposal to adopt the lowest quantity proposed in the event of there being no agreement removes any incentive to reach agreement. Whoever proposes the lowest quantity is bound to win. It is not that this limits the budgetary powers of Parliament, but that it turns the whole procedure into a mere Dutch auction. My political group had great difficulties and held many discussions in relation to accepting the Convention's final proposal in the field of finances. All the eloquence of Mr Méndez de Vigo was required to convince us that this proposal represented a fair distribution of powers. It would not be advisable today to have to begin the whole process again. This would jeopardise the trust between institutions and would strip Parliament of its capacity to have a say in the drawing up of the Union’s budgetary policies. My political group calls for the whole of the finance chapter of the draft Constitution to be taken as an indivisible and non-negotiable whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Monti, there is much that is good in Mr Jonckheer’s report on state aid for manufacturing industry and certain other sectors. First of all the report reveals Parliament’s single-minded determination to reduce state aid to ensure that the internal market functions flawlessly. Many of the report’s conclusions, however, are cause for concern, at least for our group. For example, the fact that the amount and level of state aid calculated on a per capita basis vary considerably from Member State to Member State reveals the need for surveys such as this. Aid that is based on the self-seeking ambitions of a nation gives companies unfair advantages, thus distorting competition and leading to an ineffective, uneconomic division of Europe’s meagre resources. The form the aid takes is important. Forms of state aid that require an effort from the beneficiary are to be supported. For example, state guarantees, on which the Commission has just publicised its position, must naturally be considered state aid, but they are, in my opinion, a better option than granting aid directly to companies. The report on competition policy further stresses the Commission’s confidence in hard and fast rules instead of putting the emphasis on economic arguments regarding efficiency, which affects competitiveness. The European economy will never achieve the level of competitiveness desired if we do not show we trust in the markets. If competition policy is to be made subordinate to the aims of social and environmental policy, real efficiency and economic growth will remain just a dream. Competition policy has to be seen as part of the whole of the economy and it must be assessed with reference to trade policy and non-material rights: we should not just be emphasising its social dimension. The aims of social policy can be best realised through stronger economic growth, not by making compromises with regard to decisions on competition policy. Mr Rapkay’s report also emphasises the importance of the international dimension with regard to competition law. In my opinion, it would be good if we could achieve consensus at the international level regarding certain basic principles of competition law. Aiming instead at harmonised minimum standards will easily lead to a situation where we leap over the lowest hurdle and end up with the lowest common denominator, which will water down all the aims of competition policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mrs Van Lancker's report on sexual and reproductive health and rights has been firmly rejected in Parliament by the Christian Democratic Group, and I can only support this position. We must not ignore the concerns of the national catholic lay movements and organisations in the candidate countries. The subject of this report does not lie within the competence of EU policy-making. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, decisions about such matters have to be made at national level. I am extremely concerned, above all about the endorsement given to the call for so-called emergency contraception – the 'morning-after pill' – to be standard practice. This is tantamount to proposing the legalisation of abortion in the Member States and candidate countries. Given the particular sensitivity of this subject, the adoption of the report will provoke a negative response in the candidate countries towards the enlargement process and put it under unnecessary strain. The report makes substantial demands of their governments, demands that have not been included in the decision-making programme in any shape or form. In any case, I am firmly convinced that this kind of behaviour is not the right way to foster confidence in the EU's democratic decision-making process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the common fisheries policy is one of Europe’s sensitive policies. It is characterised by the confusion between the general interests of a common policy, which is dedicated to managing a declining resource, whilst rationalising a traditional economic activity, and the objectives for developing extremely remote regions, for which fishing is one of the few sectors of activity that provides medium- and long-term employment. The Commission Green Paper on the Common Fisheries Policy paints a very gloomy picture and I regret that it contains no reference whatsoever to fishing in the territorial waters of extremely remote regions of the European Union. The ideas that are proposed, and above all, the solutions advocated, are obviously designed to meet the challenge posed by continental fishing and are poorly adapted to extremely remote regions. These regions have fought for respect for their differences, as laid down in Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and so that their specific characteristics can, at last, be taken into account in each of the European Union’s policies and, more importantly, in the common fisheries policy. The dimension of this sector in extremely remote regions, its characteristics and, above all, its impact on all fishing activities in Europe should, however, make it much easier than anticipated to justify the practical and specific measures for extremely remote regions, particularly in terms of resource and fleet quotas, of support for coastal fishing and aquaculture, as well as public limits on investment, upon which the growth of this activity in these regions depends. An adequate level of investment would enable them to develop and to modernise their fleets, to ensure greater coherence in the measures proposed by the European Commission by reconciling, on the one hand, the objectives for providing financial support to the businesses involved in processing and selling fish products and, on the other, the need to ensure that these businesses receive a regular supply of high quality raw materials. Lastly, I would like to add that we should be careful when concluding international fishing agreements and ensure that they take into account, where applicable, the proximity with extremely remote regions. Fishing licences issued by third countries to Community fishing vessels should be given, first and foremost, to fishing vessels from the extremely remote regions that are nearest and should not be seen as a means of dislodging the European fleet. I cannot conclude without congratulating Mrs Miguélez Ramos on the remarkable and difficult work that she has done to enable us to reach a consensual and satisfactory document. It is a task that seemed almost insurmountable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you said in your opening remarks that the package that we have symbolises a radical improvement upon the present system. That is true, but it does more than that. Mr Straw and Mr Hain are profoundly wrong. It is a settlement that entrenches what is truly important, it discards what is not, and strengthens the capacity of the Union to act effectively abroad and inside the Member States. It ensures that the citizen will not be abused from the greater power that is to be exercised at the federal level. The European Council should accept the proposals, without qualification, as the basis for an agreement at the IGC. At Thessaloniki we should not see this pirouetting around a convoluted formula designed to deceive. Were the IGC to seek to open up the package, it is certain that the results will be inferior. What the 15 were unable to agree at Nice will certainly be impossible for 25 to agree at the future IGC. The leaders at Thessaloniki must listen to the voice of consensus as expressed through the Convention and through this Parliament, and build the future of Europe with courage. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the exceptionally gloomy statement by Commissioner Verheugen is particularly shocking to us all in view of the fact that we are on the point of reaching a solution, by means of the Annan Plan. We had previously thought that the slogan ‘the solution is not a solution’ could be attributed solely to Mr Denktash. We now see, however, that this slogan is also used by the President of the Greek Republic of Cyprus. That is of course unacceptable. Personal interviews with Mr Papadopoulos, along with other indications, have always given me the unpleasant feeling that we were being deceived, that the Republic of Cyprus lacked the genuine will to do its utmost to reach a solution for Cyprus. Yet the assumption that the Republic would do its utmost to arrive at a solution and that it would not fail in this formed the basis for that country’s accession to the European Union. There appears to be the presumption that it is also possible to trick one’s way into membership of the European Union. That is unacceptable. We also heard just now that matters falling within the Copenhagen political criteria, in particular, such as freedom of the press and access to the media, are closed off not only to our Commissioner Verheugen and to foreigners, but also to national opposition parties. When this happens in other countries we take umbrage and tell them that we are breaking off negotiations with them, as we did with Romania, for example. We are thus now on the threshold of the membership of a new Member State that has achieved this by deception. In my opinion, we cannot accept this on any account, indicating as it does a lack of respect for the European Union. We have also experienced this in the past with Slovakia, which told us that we were interfering in its internal affairs. Yet membership of the European Union means becoming heavily involved in each other’s internal affairs. This particularly goes for matters of the Copenhagen political criteria, and particularly for matters relating to the willingness to cooperate with the European Union in good faith for the purposes of reaching a solution capable of being of extremely great benefit to the inhabitants of both the northern and the southern parts.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too wish to thank the Council and the Commission for their work, and I hope that, despite the political hurdles which will no doubt appear, the negotiations in Copenhagen will nonetheless be successfully concluded. We then come, however, to the next phase, namely the people’s support of the project by means of referendums and, in that connection, I should like to address one aspect which covers half of the population, namely women. There is no doubt – and the Commissioners have also assured us of this – that the Community acquis must be implemented. However, there is a difference between theory and practice, and the reality is of course that the situation of women in the candidate countries has not been improved following the fall of the Berlin Wall. I must therefore ask whether, in the Commission’s and the Council’s work, there is anything at all that ensures that there are opportunities for strengthening the position of women in the countries concerned. If there is not, we may have a problem with the referendums; we may have a problem with female representation at the elections to Parliament; and we may have a problem with female representation in the public administration. I would therefore ask the Commission and the Council to answer the question of whether special initiatives are being taken with regard to women in the countries concerned.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mrs Sandbæk, the rapporteur, has agreed to change 'working' to 'being exploited', meaning that the wording would now be: 'this must extend to women being exploited'. (Parliament agreed to the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0329/2003) by Jean-Pierre Bébéar, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) (2003/2106 (INI)) Before the vote on Amendment No 5:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the EPP shadow rapporteur I should like to ask if your secretarial office is in possession of an erratum regarding point 5.5, which the translation office has circulated but which, oddly enough, does not yet appear in the text distributed so far: it is a note made some time ago regarding a very serious translation error which falsifies the rapporteur’s original text. In point 5, fourth line, the rapporteur wrote: ‘The use of guns must be absolutely avoided.’ I repeat, the rapporteur’s text says: ‘The use of guns must be absolutely avoided’, and the translation is: ‘The use of guns must be absolutely forbidden.’ There is a substantial difference there, apart from the fact that Parliament can, I believe, neither consent to nor forbid the use of guns by any police force in this Community. In any case, the translation is evidently wrong. I should like to check whether you are in possession of this corrigendum before voting – irrespective, therefore, of the result of the vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I believe we should always pay great attention to our behaviour and political actions towards the countries with which we have relations and agreements in matters of cooperation and aid. There are times when our certainties or our model of democracy disregard the historical and political context of European integration and new forms of an old colonialism can appear, creating mistrust and feelings of injured dignity, or even injured sovereignty. We know that democracy is measured not just on election day but on the basis of effective grass-roots participation, civil liberties, equal opportunities, justice and development. Having said that, I do not in the least intend to give up the widely – and internationally – shared view that human rights are universal, which is why no specific context can justify the death penalty, whether in Pakistan or in the United States. I took part in the election mission to Pakistan led by Mr Cushnahan, to whom we must all be grateful – I am, at least – for the rigorous and thorough nature of his work. I agree with the EU report and the criticisms it contains not so much about the day of the elections, which, as far as I could see, were carried out correctly – we were given a very good reception by the people and the electoral representatives, and, moreover, I am talking about Peshawar, an area where the Islamic religious party prevailed – but rather the entire electoral process, with its restrictions and the erroneous decision to allow only those with a degree to stand as candidates. I believe the transition from military domination to democratically elected political representation will be difficult: the path of democracy in Pakistan is difficult and, without a doubt, is hindered by the military. I also think it will be extremely difficult to eradicate corruption and poverty, which goes hand in hand with its defeat, and I say so because I myself come from a country that is not poor but where there is still, in actual fact, a lot of corruption. I believe we must make a major effort in the fields of cooperation and trade and carry out political analysis in the areas of development and education, and I also believe that the human rights of all people should be upheld, even those accused of terrorism. We must therefore call upon the Pakistan Government to comply with the international treaties.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mr Ribeiro e Castro for an excellent report. I agree with most of what has been brought up in the discussion, especially by the speakers immediately preceding me. I would like to add two comments. Firstly, I would like to say how glad I am that the report so clearly emphasises that the free movement we want in Europe must be based on the principle of voluntary mobility. I highlight this particularly in view of the fact that, in my own and other countries, employment services have often been used as a kind of instrument with which to force population movements between different parts of the country through economic means. I hope that it will never be possible to implement any such measure at European level. I would also like to emphasise that I am surprised that no-one in this discussion has pointed out that we are now discussing technical and practical obstacles to free movement across borders, at the same time as major Member States are setting up huge practical and political obstacles to free movement between the labour markets of the candidate countries and those of the current Member States. This suggests, of course, that we are concerned with a political rather than a solely practical problem when we talk about free movement in Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my voting against the ten accession reports is intended to express my deep concern that the European Union has as yet failed to do as it had promised and enlarge and deepen the EU both at the same time. My confidence in the EU Member States is shattered to its foundations, for not only has their lack of unity in matters of foreign and security policy been demonstrated to Europe's detriment, but, for the same reasons, the Treaty of Nice failed to achieve the conditions required before enlargement can take place. The Convention has not yet produced an outcome, let alone a commitment to the new treaty text being ratified as soon as possible. I regard it as hypocritical to decide on enlargement while the European Union's unresolved problems are swept under the carpet. When this House has such an important decision to take, I would have liked to see more determination to defend its rights in relation to the Council. Lest I be misunderstood, let me say that I am in favour of enlargement, and as soon as possible, even by 1 May 2004, but for that we need a new treaty basis, one that guarantees common action on crucial issues even when there are over 25 Member States. More than ever before, I find a lack of the common European will that is capable of mastering tasks in the strong Europe of tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am grateful for your words but not for their content. In other words, I appreciate your concern but not the content of the information you have offered. This cannot be due to lack of time because I asked this question to the Council three months ago and it did not reply It did not reply within the time period laid down and is replying now, orally, two months late. Do you not think, Mr President-in-Office, that a census of European citizens sentenced to death throughout the world would be a very useful tool in the defence of the right to life, so that the political institutions of the European Union may be in a position to defend that right to life? Do you not think that it is rather difficult to accept that an economic and political power such as Europe, which is capable of building satellites, of sending men to the moon, of creating a single currency, that is to say, an important power, is not capable of knowing how many European citizens are sentenced to death in the world? Do you not think that this is rather difficult for the European citizens to understand? I know that we require the commitment of the Member States, but do you not think that what we basically need is a political will which, until now, I have not seen from any quarter?

Political group: PSE
From the very outset, the joint resolution adopts a paternalistic tone in its assessment that the conflict in Côte d'Ivoire ‘cannot be attributed solely to the ethnic factor’ – which, in any case, attaches value to the factor in question. Is it not, though, the neo-liberalisation of the Ivorian economy, the reduced prices for raw materials and the consequent impoverishment of the people, the way in which multinational companies openly set Ivorian neo-colonial factions against each other, that have enabled speeches about ‘ivoirité’ to find an audience, and facilitated coups d'etat? The joint resolution has nothing to say about the need to withdraw the French peacekeeping troops; the historic links between the army, French businesses, and the political class in Côte d'Ivoire and the neighbouring states mean that the French army and foreign office cannot be regarded as neutral, so the involvement of other actors needs to be encouraged. This at once weakens many of the points in the Linas-Marcoussis agreement. The best policy for preventing conflicts is to eradicate their causes, and, in this instance, those who started the fires are no good at putting them out. There is a need to get away from the profoundly anti-democratic, neo-colonialist way of thinking in order to move towards another form of cooperation between Europe and Africa. I therefore abstained from voting on a resolution that does not get to grips with these problems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
That the Florenz report has caused such a stir has been proven by the powerful lobby machine which has been set in motion by both industry and the environmental movement. I regret that the manufacturers have harangued the European Parliament and the Council with a whole ream of arguments which either cut no ice or were simply false. I dare say this because I took the trouble to go into the field and collect information from, among others, scrapyards which already recycle car components successfully. They made it clear to me that the arguments concerning lack of safety, for example, are nonsense. The car lobby was unsuccessful today and I am pleased about that. The directive remains in place. I expect that we will achieve an excellent result in the reconciliation and that the efforts to achieve a better living environment will triumph over unreasonable industrial requirements.

Political group: Verts-ALE