GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make five points from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Firstly, where the reunification of Europe is concerned, all of us are aware of its historical dimension and our own political and moral responsibility. It must succeed and it will succeed because it is right and proper. Secondly, the economic data show positive developments. Economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe continues to be above the EU average. The macroeconomic situation has improved. EU exports to the accession countries are on the up and the accession countries are already benefiting now from the accession negotiations because under this process they are also being given orientation aid for necessary reforms, which would have had to be implemented anyway after 50 years of Communist dictatorship, even if they did not have the prospect of joining the EU. Thirdly, and the Commissioner touched on this, economic and monetary union – the euro – will not be achieved immediately upon accession. It is important that we point out that once the Copenhagen criteria have been fulfilled, the Maastricht criteria will need to be met – without any opting-out clauses and that this will probably require at least another three, four, five or more years. Fourthly, money and balance sheets are, after all, not the be-all and end-all. The economic indicators are positive, but they are only a means to an end and not an end in themselves. We said this today in the debate on the Middle East: a means to an end which is to create peace, provide security, guarantee social stability, build up a democratic polity and safeguard growth and employment. Fifthly, there is much to be done: to meet the stability criteria, to regulate state aid, to remove regional disparities, to reform pensions, social security and health services, to make rapid progress on privatisation, and to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the public authorities. We have reached an important stage. We look towards the goal with optimism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wished to speak because I naturally find the result of this trial unacceptable. It has been restarted twice. The Supreme Court, at the request of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, has restarted the trial. The verdict is identical. We could not be more disappointed and, faced with such confusion, there is nothing more to say. I went to see Leyla Zana in 1995 at her prison in Ankara, with the other Kurdish prisoners, prisoners of conscience, we must remember. It was the year when the Customs Union was to be voted on. I was very confused and said to myself that maybe I should give Turkey a chance, since I was in favour of its accession in the future. I therefore went to the country to learn about its evolution, which I wanted to give a chance by voting for the Customs Union. I thought that maybe this would have an effect on respect for human rights, respect for minorities and freedom of expression. Of course, I must recognise today that, unfortunately, things have hardly developed in a positive way. I am, nevertheless, Mr President, in favour of Turkey entering the European Union. I am, however, sorry that Turkey continues to violate human rights and I insist that a considerable effort be made. Otherwise I fear that accession is in a bad way.

Political group: ELDR
Taking advantage of the recent entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, the European Central Bank has already made use of its new powers by proposing an amendment to the operating methods of its Governing Council. Although there are no doubts as to the ECB’s need to adapt its operation to the forthcoming enlargement of the EU, some questions nevertheless remain about the new model it has presented. Like the United Nations, the ECB would now have an Executive Board consisting of 5 Member States with permanent voting rights. The other Member States from the Eurozone, including Portugal, would be integrated into one or two groups with a rotating voting system, with votes weighted according to GDP size. In practice, this reform runs the risk of marginalising the smaller Member States, abusing the principle of ‘one country, one vote’ and making the ECB’s operations complex and opaque. The ECB must be a strong body, with greater autonomy from the governments of the EU’s Member States. This is not about the amount of power Portugal will lose but a fundamental issue of the type of European construction that we wish to achieve.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am wholly and unequivocally in favour of Greece’s adoption of the single European currency, the euro. As Mr Goebbels stated in his report, the European Parliament’s task is not to assess practical adherence to the Maastricht criteria, for that has already been done, item by item, by the Commission and the bodies whose task it is to monitor these indicators and keep us informed. The European Parliament must express a political opinion; it must speak from the heart and not on the basis of figures; it must listen to its soul instead of numbers. What sort of European Union is it in which one of the 15 States, which wishes to accede to the most committed and most important level of European cohesion, is still standing outside the door? When, as the report maintains, we consider that all the Maastricht criteria are fulfilled and that, in addition, this country is called Greece – an enchanting name in itself – we cannot fail to realise that this cannot continue and be moved to remedy the situation. And I refer, in particular, to the Greek pensioners. You may wonder why, as representative of the Italian Pensioners’ Party, I am interested in Greek pensioners. But Mr President, if we have to ask Greece to reduce its State deficit – and, unfortunately, we know that, nowadays, this is only achieved by reducing pensions – instead of avoiding wastage – which, as the previous speaker said, in governments, especially, is due to poor budgetary allocations – we must not make the pensioners and elderly citizens of Greece pay the price for its accession to the European currency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like, first of all, to thank the Commission for having proposed a clearly defined strategy in the field of lifelong learning, as well as the rapporteur, Mrs Van Brempt. We had great expectations for this communication because we all knew that the Member States had made almost no progress in the field since the Lisbon Council. If we genuinely wish to create a Europe of knowledge by encouraging equal opportunities, it is crucial to offer every citizen of the Union equal access to education and to lifelong learning. With a view to the translation of this strategy into practical action, I shall focus on a number of points. First of all, we must make efforts in the area of the recognition and transferability of learning and qualifications by making use of already existing networks or by creating new ones. Secondly, access to lifelong learning must be provided for all employees and for jobseekers. It therefore falls to the Commission to promote all Member State initiatives in this area and, wherever possible, to propose specific programmes designed, for example, for jobseekers or for young people without qualifications. Thirdly, it is crucial to agree on a target for annual expenditure in the field of education and lifelong learning and to provide fiscal or other incentives to encourage investment by employers and individual citizens. Finally, I wish to focus on the European dimension of education and training, which requires mastery of a second language. All the institutions and the Member States must pursue their efforts in this field so that there is a proper follow-up to the European Year of Languages. The European area of education and lifelong learning is a huge workshop and we must establish it without delay to enable all of our fellow citizens to benefit more from this right to learn.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although I support the report, I wish to make known certain reservations pertaining to same. Ireland's derogation for domestic water charges is not as strong as I would want it to be. The key provisions – Art. 9, paragraph 4 – state that a Member State 'shall not be in breach of this Directive' if a decision not to introduce domestic water charges based on 'established practice does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive'. It follows from this paragraph that a decision not to impose water charges would be in breach of the Directive if it can be linked to the Irish Government's failure to meet the new standards. I have no confidence, given the Irish Government's failure to date, that they will reach the standards set.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I just wanted to draw the attention of the House to a major seminar that has been held in Dublin over the last two days on the subject of HIV/AIDS. I would also like to draw to the attention of the Commission what emerged during that conference, particularly that the growth in the incidence of AIDS has been so horrific that it has been considered worse than the spread of the Black Death in the 14th century. I hope very much that colleagues – not only within this session of the Parliament but also in the next Parliament – will recognise the serious, catastrophic and deadly problem we are facing. I hope, too, Mr President, that as you were present in Dublin, we will see some continuity from that conference.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Bakopoulos for a very successful report. Increased safety is very important for maritime traffic. Our group supports the main ideas in the report. The proposed regulation and directive will make it easier to take account of international amendments to Community acts on maritime safety. The problem has always been one of delay, which is the result of the Community’s slowness in drafting legislation. The intention of the proposal is to remove the problems mentioned earlier. Procedures must indeed be simplified. Combining several committees that at present operate separately into one Committee on Safe Seas, responsible for matters of maritime safety, is the right way to help clarify how these matters should be dealt with. Sea safety standards are an attempt to meet certain minimum conditions, and one advantage of the pre-inspection procedure contained in the regulation is that it will clarify the question of applicable law and increase legal certainty. In future we must ensure that procedures followed in the Member States specifically to implement international agreements on maritime safety and Community legislation can be made simpler. However, we must safeguard the opportunities for Member States to act within the context of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). In future too it must be a matter of principle that the IMO should be in charge of international maritime safety by concluding international agreements, passing resolutions and agreeing conventions.

Political group: ELDR
I have voted against the report, which has been adopted by 406 votes, with 95 votes against and 33 abstentions. I object to the fact that the European Parliament has voted (by 344 votes, with 185 votes against and 12 abstentions) in favour of the proposal to set up a new European authority for road safety issues. Road safety is a very important responsibility. Every year, many thousands of lives are claimed on European roads. Setting up a further EU authority is no solution, however. What, rather, is required is more stringent monitoring of the ways in which the road traffic regulations are complied with. The EU is weighed down by a significant bureaucracy which swallows large sums of money. National authorities now already exist with the task of promoting road safety – in Sweden’s case, the National Road Administration in Borlänge. Nor can I support the decision to set up a new European transport fund, as approved by 368 votes, with 145 against and 13 abstentions. The proposal is in danger of causing Member States with currently high road standards indirectly to be forced to pay money to countries whose roads are of poorer quality. The Southern Europeans would see in a new transport fund an opportunity to request funds to improve neglected roads at a time when funds from the regional and cohesion funds will, to a greater extent, be going to the new East European Member States. A European transport fund could easily lead to countries’ deliberately according less priority to their national investment in roads in order, instead, to request funds from the common European budget.

Political group: PPE-DE
I thank the Commissioner for his statement. Only in the last two sentences did he mention the role of the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin. Since the Bureau has been in existence for some six or seven years, I wonder why it did not find this out sooner. As the Commissioner stated, the problem involving nitrofen has been around for some five or six years. If the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin is indeed supposed to check the inspectors in the Member States, then it is a little late in tracking down this instance of food contamination. Why is that? Can the Commissioner give an explanation for this? How often, for example, have inspections taken place and how often do inspections take place in other countries to check on this type of thing and especially on organic production.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this is a vital issue for Europe. A Europe that faces an impending pensions time bomb must take every step to encourage saving and maximise the return that the people of Europe can obtain on their savings. I welcome many of the developments which Mr Schmidt’s report brings us. UCITS are a success story within the European Union. They are a safe product, traded cross-border. But it is time for the legislation to be updated. Mr Schmidt has done an excellent job here. It is no secret that I would have much preferred Mr Schmidt’s report not to have been altered so much as it passed through Parliament. But I appeal to this House to take a balanced and common-sense approach on this issue. The radical step taken by this report is to allow UCITS to use over-the-counter derivatives. I appeal to everyone here to evaluate the products which will be used by UCITS. We are not talking about the use of derivatives for speculation. We are talking about the use of derivatives to reduce risk and to increase the returns on the savings of ordinary Europeans. Mr Schmidt is to be applauded for having obtained the support of Parliament for over-the-counter derivatives. We must not be afraid to go forward, to react to changes in the market. Yes, we need to continue to ensure that UCITS provide a balanced and protected product for consumers. The report gives very adequate protection for consumers. But a number of the amendments go too far in restricting the use of over-the-counter derivatives. I feel these derivatives will be an addition to the portfolio of unit trusts, which can only help individual people around Europe obtain a high return on their savings. I salute Mr Schmidt.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of the vast ecological, economic and social disaster that Galicia is currently suffering, which has become a genuine European problem, I believe we must be clear in this debate we are holding. Prevention first, cure second, it was said here. The former, prevention, means we must not be distracted from the real culprits in this tragedy. We are dealing with a floating dump, with dangerous goods, with an opaque network of the interests of soulless businessmen that we should untangle and condemn. Must we investigate all these aspects? Yes. Should we prevent them? Again yes. I hope and believe that this time the European Union has learnt its lesson. The European Commission has learnt its lesson. The European Commission is clear about the matter, and I believe that now the European Parliament and the Council must be intransigent in the face of the laxness and casual attitude of this maritime traffic. Secondly, cure. We must focus on repairing the damage that has been caused. Galicia cannot pay the physical price, in addition to the damage it is suffering. The real victim is the entire people of Galicia. Our responsibility now is to work together to achieve the maximum structural funds and the application of the Solidarity Fund; we are going to achieve it. An inquiry? Of course. I would like to say here – it has already been said, but I would like to repeat it – that the Galician Parliament has set up, today and with the agreement of all the political parties, a committee of inquiry. It is applying the principle of subsidiarity so that the closest politicians investigate the matter and therefore we, together with the and the UEN Group, have tabled an amendment for a comprehensive technical inquiry to be undertaken into this complex aspect. We are going to ask for more European means to achieve better coordination and civil protection; however, Mr President, seeking to use the tragedy for electoral gain, as some politicians are doing, is simply repulsive. I believe this division is damaging to the politicians themselves as well to the victims, who are confused and stunned both from the effects of the disaster and from seeing politicians attacking each other with their partisan egotism. I shall end, Mr President, by thanking, as a Galician European, all of Parliament and the institutions present here today, for the solidarity they are showing us and which I know they will continue to show us over the coming days.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, rapporteur, I would like to congratulate you on your report. There has been some turmoil lately, and I believe the genetically modified organisms will, of course, be inclined to dispute the purport of this directive. But in all fairness, it has to be said that no one is forced to use genetically modified material. It has had no place in viticulture so far. I am fundamentally opposed to genetically modified organisms and am a wine lover, and I would very much like to stick with the wine we have been producing to date. I therefore welcome the fact that we have placed additional emphasis on traditional, regional types of wine. When it comes to genetically modified material, I take the view that the reference made in this report to directive 90/220 secures legal protection. Any prospective changes, will, and must, be made to this end. In addition, Mrs Klass, it is, however, important to stress the political dimension as well as the legal aspect, particularly where viticulture is concerned, and – providing we manage to do so – to keep viticulture free of genetically modified material if at all possible. I hope that the wine growers will have no truck with GMOs, for their own sake, because we know that consumers strongly disapprove. I hope this will inspire us to rule out the possibility of having genetically modified vines.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we know that there are various weak points on the shared external border, for example with Slovakia, where there is still a border line running for some forty kilometres, which is difficult to police properly. Could you envisage a force of this kind being deployed on a short-term basis in especially vulnerable border areas where help and protection might be needed?

Political group: PPE-DE
First I would like to thank the President of the Council for his statement that the system we are debating is unacceptable in principle. That is something, at least. Having said that, I was expecting the Council to give us some details about the problem we are trying to deal with today. I have to say I am disappointed. To use a sporting metaphor, the representatives of the Council and the Commission have been doing what I call the fencing side-step. It is very effective in fencing, but I dislike it in politics. I have no regrets whatsoever about having taken the initiative, with my group, in calling for a parliamentary committee of inquiry into this matter. I think the stature of the European Parliament will be enhanced by adopting such an initiative and I hope the whole of Parliament will support that position. I also want to point out that while speeches on the principle are of course interesting, we have to have the courage to talk about the facts. Eighteen months ago, during a debate in this same Parliament, when Mr Bangemann was the Commissioner responsible, he said, in answer to a number of questions from Members, that if the system existed it would represent a serious problem for human rights and the operation of the European Union. We have since discovered that this system does exist, but we do not know exactly how it works. There is good reason to believe that a European Union Member State – the United Kingdom, to make no bones about it – is collaborating in the system. I expected the Council Presidency to make a statement about that. Is the British Government being open about it? Is it collaborating in the system or not? I think we have a right to know. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law is observed. We have good reason to believe that Community law is being flouted in this case. Directives are obviously fine if they are applied, but what use are they if there is clearly technology available for by-passing them? Especially when we know that certain Member States are probably collaborating in order to by-pass them. I am really very worried. If this Parliament seeks to represent the people of Europe, it really must clarify this situation. We will not be doing that if we routinely wait for initiatives from the Council and the Commission. I want to remind the House that we passed a resolution eighteen months ago calling for a proper open debate on this type of monitoring technology. In view of what I have just heard, there is no genuinely open debate. Secondly, we said effective economic protection systems and encryption must be adopted. Now we are told the same thing all over again, eighteen months later. Are we going to pass another resolution in Strasbourg repeating the 1998 resolution? I honestly believe that it is now too late for that. Therefore, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we must move into a higher gear and it is this Parliament’s duty, as the third institution of the Union, to spearhead the attack.

Political group: Verts-ALE