GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the issue of the European arrest warrant is really quite bizarre, not only because important issues remain vague, but also because Parliament lacks the courage to exact what it agrees to in substance. First of all, I should like to give you a random example of this lack of clarity. The Council has rightly pared down the Commission proposal, as a result of which a Member State can refuse to extradite someone if that person has not done anything wrong according to that country. I agree with this. Accordingly, a Dutch doctor who carries out an abortion on an Irish girl in the Netherlands does not face extradition to Ireland. However, could this doctor ever go on holiday to Ireland, or any other EU country, if Ireland requests extradition on the grounds of manslaughter? This remains unclear, and a lack of clarity in criminal law leads to the sense of justice being eroded. I should now like to turn to the issue of parliamentary courage. Mr Watson, ever since the Di Lello report, this Parliament has been of the opinion ‘that the Member States have to agree on common minimum standards for certain aspects of procedural law in order to guarantee a common level of protection of the constitutional right across the EU’. Since the European arrest warrant has demonstrated the need to protect our citizens across the European Union, and we also have the tool to enforce this protection, then we must also have the courage to use it. And you need not be frightened. If the Council is just as dynamic and decisive in guaranteeing citizens’ rights as it is in taking repressive measures, the European arrest warrant will not run into any delays. Certainly not now the Commission has presented a first version of the minimum standards, by means of which it has demonstrated that these are both necessary and possible. With regard to the definition of terrorism, my group adheres to a number of guarantees included in the recitals and the Council Declarations of 6 December, including the guarantee that nothing in this framework decision ‘can be interpreted in such a way that people who exercise their constitutional right to free expression of opinion can be charged on terrorist grounds, even if they break the law in the process.’ But all good intentions to adopt this text have been seriously hampered by the fact that these guarantees are not included in the Council Decisions of 27 December. The essence of the definition in this text is identical, but the guarantees have disappeared. They are not even referred to. Our amendment to the resolution aims to plug this loophole and, since only time will tell whether I am unnecessarily distrustful or justifiably cautious, I would ask the other groups to give my group this assurance.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the /EFA Group would, of course, like to congratulate the rapporteur. I would like to say that we agree entirely with her stance and proposal in this report. I do not intend to go into detail at all but would just like to say that we are all waiting for the Commission’s overall proposal for Asia and Latin America to arrive soon – after the summer, if I have understood correctly. More generally, I would like to criticise the Commission and the Council for having shown themselves to have been extremely ill-prepared for the legislative process, which has led to payment of the limited funds available for development aid being delayed for an extremely long time. Now, many aid organisations and non-governmental organisations are desperately waiting to receive money. This really is not the way it should be. I would also like to remind the Commission that, at the Gothenburg summit, an undertaking was given to contribute to sustainable development on a global basis, for example, by ensuring that the UN targets for aid, amounting to 0.7 per cent of GNP, are achieved. I would like to ask the Commission whether there are any plans regarding how this is to happen, bearing in mind that Germany is now down to 0.25 per cent of GNP and that only Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg have achieved the target or exceeded it. What plans are there for achieving this in practice? I think it is shameful that Germany is now down to around the same level as the US.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I welcome this report and thank Mrs Ramos for her introduction which was comprehensive and constructive. It is useful to make this effort to promote better dialogue between the European Union and those involved in fisheries. In the part of the European Union I come from, a peripheral region, we have always had particular difficulty in selling the idea of a common fisheries policy to fishermen. Since Mr MacCormick has brought up the subject – and I have referred to it before – the position is difficult for Ireland because if you took Ireland out of the European Union, you would take a lot of fish with you. Traditionally, Irish fishermen did not catch those fish, because as some people will know, there was a period in our history when it was forbidden by law to put fish into Irish vessels. That situation largely continued until the beginning of this century, and so people were still fishing in outdated curraghs 20 years before we joined the European Union. In any case, it is a fact of life that something like EUR 700 million worth of fish – and perhaps even more because the price of fish has changed – comes out of Irish waters. As a result of the reduction in the structural funds allocated to Ireland, because of its economic growth, the value of fish taken out of what would be Irish waters if there was no European Union will be greater in a couple of years time than the total amount of structural funds coming to Ireland. That makes this proposal even more difficult to sell. I am not aware that the same is true in any other country of the European Union. Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, takes its natural share along with the United Kingdom, but Ireland is the one country which does not. This is the only natural resource which I know all Member States concede as common property of the European Union. That does not mean that we do not need to proceed with this dialogue. The extension of the 20-mile limit, which Parliament has agreed to, might be part of the solution and might help to satisfy local fishermen, giving them more control over their lives. I do not want renationalisation, but regionalisation would certainly help the problems of Scotland and Ireland.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, by local powers, we all understand the same thing, but when it comes to regional powers, there are different types of regional powers in Europe, some with recognised legislative powers. And it is these legislative powers which must allow these regions, these territories, to have the right to bring cases before the Court of Justice when their competences are encroached upon. The rapporteur says that there is no need to establish differences between the various regions. But in his country there are still regions a statuto speciale, which have different prerogatives. We also believe that the principle of subsidiarity should not be restricted to relations between the European Union and the Member States, but that it should also apply to other tiers of government. Today in Europe there are certain regions with legislative powers which are genuinely Stateless nations, such as Catalonia, or, as the next speaker will surely say... Finally, cross-border cooperation is also an essential element in European construction, and we are pleased that the Napolitano report recognises this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome today's debate. I am delighted that we are holding it at the end of the European Year of Languages, because we have tried several times during the course of this year to persuade the Commission to do something about lesser-used languages. The Commission's standard response has been that it was not doing anything because it wanted to devise a special programme next year. Now we hear that the Commission does not intend to do anything about lesser-used languages. In this respect I am glad that this question is on today's agenda. I am sorry that some joker has taken the liberty of changing the title of the resolution. We are not talking about language diversity, we are talking about the lesser-used languages, which is why I am also rather sorry, Commissioner Nielson, that you chose not to honour a lesser-used language by speaking Danish. It is not a question of pride, it is a question of respect for the diversity of European languages, of which Danish is one. I am all for talking about it, I am all for talking more about it, I am all for the Commission's doing something about it. But I must say to you in all honesty that the text before us today has been thrown together, it is slapdash and flippant and I, for one, am not proud of it. I am sorry, but it has to be said. We could have done a much better job if we had had more time, which is why our group does not support all the proposed amendments. I think that Article 3 is better than Amendment No 4. Why should I agree to your proposed amendment when our article in the resolution is better than your proposed amendment? We mean the same thing. We just need less flippancy here. On another question, all of us here in the House – including me personally – are in favour of qualified majority voting on cultural affairs. But we should walk before we insist on running. We can only run once we have learned to walk, which is why we must keep a sense of reason and hope that Laeken prompts something in the convention to bring this about. Finally, I should like to say that we in the are ready to suggest an own initiative report on lesser-used languages at the next meeting of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. This will allow all those who have spoken so fulsomely in favour today to put their money where their mouth is. I for one would be delighted if we dumped this resolution today because it is not as good as an own initiative report could be. I assume that the Socialists will want no part of it, so we shall see how it all turns out. But I should like to inform the House that we shall be putting in for a report. Please tell your fellow members to vote with us then next year.

Political group: PPE-DE
I fully support this report, which will potentially ensure that EU consumers operate in a level playing field and sales promotions are standardised across EU Member States. Indeed, one of the most compelling arguments in favour of the euro is that European citizens are able to compare prices across borders. This advantage is at present distorted by the fact that different types of sales promotion exist in member states and therefore cross-border price transparency is effectively distorted. Once this directive eventually comes into force, it will represent one more step towards the completion of a fully functioning single market. So this proposal is the best way to achieve price transparency and to ensure a level playing field. However, as the committee recommends, it should remain the prerogative of individual Member States to decide whether to ban discounts on fixed price products and I fully support the committee's insistence that the principle of subsidiarity must be upheld in this domain. - Berenguer Fuster report (A5-0249/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, it was with great satisfaction that my political group received the proposal to establish a Community programme to combat social exclusion. We see this proposal as a milestone in the understanding and analysis of, and fight against, this phenomenon, which is spreading and growing, which has struck every society in Europe, which is manifesting itself in new forms in response to economic and technological changes and in the face of which many governments are at a loss and are therefore dragging their feet in coming to terms with and dealing with the social problems resulting from these widespread changes. We support the various elements of the programme, such as a multidimensional approach to this phenomenon, measures on health, education, housing, cohesion and complementarity with other related policies and the involvement of both non-governmental organisations and the very people who are subject to social exclusion. We support increasing the budget to EUR 100 000 000 and we attach great importance to the need for the programme to be carried out at grass roots level. This is a real opportunity for the citizens of Europe to feel that a social Europe is being created and is a reality, rather than just a wish or a slogan. We therefore attach huge importance to collaboration with agencies at local, regional and cross-border level, which is why we tabled various amendments which, fortunately, were taken on board by all the groups. The Equal Opportunities Committee stressed the need to take account in the programme of the fact that women are particularly vulnerable to social exclusion, particularly special categories of women such as immigrants, women with special needs, unemployed women, women with no modern vocational training and single mothers. It is not just that these categories of women are cut off from the social fabric; they also find it difficult to acquire the prerequisites for reintegration. We must monitor the application of the programme and its evaluation very closely, Commissioner, because we believe that it will help to achieve the objective we are all striving towards – the objective of a social Europe, a citizens' Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the EU has good reason to be satisfied with progress on sustainable development. However, resistance to it is now becoming a reality and national and commercial interests are clearly coming into view. It is more important than ever for the EU to be able to strengthen its partnerships with third countries and other blocs. To its credit, the Union has especially dedicated itself to slowing down and preventing climate change. The information necessary for this is still limited, though sufficient to state that there no longer exists any scientific uncertainty that human beings are causing the earth’s climate to become warmer. Our prominent role, however, means the data we have needs to be coordinated and explored more fully. For that reason I want, prior to the meeting at Johannesburg, to propose that the EU should establish a special European Climate Change Agency, whose job it would be to support the Community in policy concerning climatic change. Right now this would be an important signal politically. The EU must acquire firm scientific support for its work, for example, in matters to do with trade, as our major competitor, the United States of America, is not intending to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It would be the task of the European Climate Change Agency to compile data on climatic change and its impact on the environment, the economy and society. The Agency would have to produce and commission studies and evaluate existing data, and thus act as the much-needed link between scientific research and the political decision-makers. All this is necessary for the EU’s policy of sustainable development to gain strength and for the EU to hone its role as international leader. By acting on the best available information the EU can build international partnerships in which selfish national and financial ambitions can be constructively thwarted. Climatic change is the most serious problem in our history and its most serious threat. It would be only reasonable to see it also taken seriously in connection with the use of EU resources.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that body language can sometimes speak louder than words, but I do hope that Mr Moscovici’s distracted and condescending demeanour during this debate is not representative of the attitude of the Council of which he is the President-in-Office. I am sure that this is not the case, and I hope that those countries which have welcomed President Prodi’s speech with relief and enthusiasm will be able to take steps in the run up to Nice to ensure that it is a genuine success. I would just like to focus briefly on the appraisal of the Convention method. It is quite true that it is an improvement on an Intergovernmental Conference, but – take note, ladies and gentlemen – even the Convention was forced to achieve consensus on every single word and, in the end, particularly during the concluding phase, it turned into a sort of Intergovernmental Conference II: our Praesidium had to negotiate with the Member States instead of, or as well as, Members of Parliament. I therefore feel that, once again, the obligation to achieve unanimity on every single part of the Charter as well as on the final result will prove extremely hampering when we come to evaluate the content of the Charter itself.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The motion to allow European citizens freedom of movement and residence on Community territory is on the right track, which is why I support it. It gives citizens greater opportunity to exercise their right to move freely throughout the Community by calling for procedures to be simplified and pared down. Of course, making over six months’ residence dependent on financial resources could give rise to social discrimination. Now that the definition of the family has been extended to same sex or unmarried partners, the directive reflects the diversity of family relationships in today’s society more closely. Finally, greater flexibility is needed for students studying abroad; with the length of time studying takes nowadays, this could be considered as a reason for obtaining a residence permit.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioners, if every possible attempt is made – and rightly so – to establish ways of creating an information society for everyone, we should make just as great an effort to ensure that we do not end up recreating a dual society with IT literates on one side and IT illiterates on the other. Moreover, I set great store by protecting small and medium-sized businesses, with special emphasis on the small businesses. In this connection, it is important to ensure that guarantees are provided for advertising purposes. Indeed, due to a lack of a harmonised policy on commercial communication, obstacles could well surface which cannot be negotiated, particularly by small businesses. Far-reaching harmonisation concerning commercial communication is therefore urgently needed. In the last instance, I would also like to underline how important it is that at least the parties involved, i.e. the consumer and entrepreneur, must always be able to make prior arrangements regarding the applicable legal system. After all, if it is stipulated that consumers can take legal action within their own jurisdiction, then this situation will be untenable for small businesses, which will need legal assistance in 14 other Member States. Needless to say, small businesses cannot afford to make this kind of arrangement.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I received a reply which was quite substantial and requires some study on my part. I do not, however, agree with the Presidency’s viewpoint that this is not a matter for the Council. I believe that from the moment the European Union was created, from the moment we had free movement, from the moment we had the Schengen Agreement and consensus on the issue of the movement of people between Member States, no country, such as the United States, should ever have been allowed to come along and rock the boat and impose discriminatory practices on a country like Greece. From this viewpoint, we would expect the Council and particularly the Finnish Presidency, which is generally attuned to these issues, to intervene in some way with the United States.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I voted against this report, not because I do not support the recommendations on the way forward in the event of another unfortunate outbreak of foot and mouth disease, but because of the basic inaccuracies in the preamble. I prefer to vote for fact and not fiction and, because certain people wish to obscure the truth with political fiction, I have voted against. It has been claimed that over 10 million animals were slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak but owners have only claimed compensation for 6.5 million. Farmers, I know, are not slow in coming forward. There is no evidence of breaches in animal welfare legislation. If there was, surely there would have been prosecutions, since animal rights groups within the UK are amongst the most active in the world. Finally, the report hints at breaches in environmental legislation due to such events as the burning of dead carcasses. The Environmental Agency within the UK carried out an investigation of the procedure used in the foot and mouth outbreak and concluded that there had been no breaches. The report is, therefore, unfortunately basically flawed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Secretary-General, as you can tell, the Members of this House have listened with great interest to your information on the result of the Informal Meeting of Defence Ministers in Sintra and its significance in the European integration process in terms of security and defence. Thank you too for sharing with us your telephone conversation with Mr Gil-Robles. However, in terms of foreign policy, I am not sure whether we can advance at the rate needed to meet requirements, as some Members have said this afternoon, without ignoring the problems which you are coming up against. I will give you an example. During the recent trip by the President of the European Parliament to the Middle East, which you mentioned, the various conflicting parties were in agreement about asking for a more active presence from the European Union in the on-going peace process in the region. Do you believe that representatives of Community institutions and Member State governments are acting with the coordination and balance required of those who, like us, hope to mediate between two opposing parties? This House is rather doubtful about this and I am not sure whether you share this doubt. In this respect, as you will know, the European Parliament is working on an initiative to form a common diplomatic corps of the Community. This is clearly not intended to replace the diplomatic services of the Member States but to complement these and possibly improve their coordination. Could you give us an initial reaction to this initiative, without compromising the more detailed reaction which you may be able to give us in the Foreign Affairs Committee?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I asked Mr Patten a direct question. I wondered whether he was going to give me an answer?

Political group: PSE
In some parts of the European Union, such as the rural and island areas of Scotland, there is simply no alternative to road transport for the distribution of goods or passengers. For that reason, excessively restricted working hours for lorry and coach drivers would add to the difficulties already faced by residents and businesses, bringing further increases in costs of essential goods and services. I will therefore vote against amendments which seek to apply even greater reductions in driving time than contained in the Commission's proposal. If EU regulations are to be seen as relevant, due account must be taken of the realities facing rural and island communities. I hope that the final proposal in relation to drivers' working hours will recognise that some areas, such as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, require a flexible approach to be taken and I hope that the Council and Commission will agree. IN THE CHAIR: MR COXPresident

Political group: Verts-ALE