GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, to understand the debate we are holding on the two magnificent reports presented by Mr Trentin and Mr Marinos, we should remember that Maastricht was not just another European Council; it was to all intents and purposes a Council at which two dogmas were enshrined: the dogma of price stability and that of budgetary balance. Lisbon and Barcelona have added a new dogma, a clarification of the doctrine, and point to reform as the only path to salvation, with salvation meaning closing the gap that separates us from the United States. The task of defending the dogma is entrusted to the European Central Bank – the defender of the faith on issues of monetary policy – although, in the fields of budgetary and macroeconomic policy, where the risk of dispersal is greater, it is difficult to know exactly who should play this role. We are currently witnessing a resurrection of misguided and perverse behaviour, and, what is even worse, the emergence of doctrines that seek to justify this kind of perversion; few in the field of monetary policy, but more in the fields of budgetary and macroeconomic policy. Document after document reaffirming these dogmas appear, but they lack coordination and strength. At a time when we are tackling the reform of the Treaties, and now that the Convention is up and running, I would, therefore, say the same thing about these economic guidelines as about the employment guidelines: they should serve to share diagnoses, to establish clear codes of conduct and mechanisms for sanctions or penalties where misguided behaviour occurs. I would also like – and Mrs Randzio-Plath will probably explain this to you – the Commission to continue to be the driving force, to continue to hold the monopoly of initiative and for the principle of qualified majority to be extended, together with that of codecision, to cover most macroeconomic areas. Mr Solbes is no mere altar boy; he is a high priest, and has a fundamental role – that of spearhead, like Saint Vicente Ferrer – in this process of reform.

Political group: PPE-DE
Shortly, when we discuss swine fever later in the agenda, it will again become apparent that what matters in livestock farming is still more meat, cheap meat and satisfying the requirements of world trade. Not only people and their environment but also animal welfare is sacrificed to the free market. National rules for protection are brushed aside by great economic interests and European liberalisation. The further liberalisation is carried, the more it works to the advantage of whoever produces cheapest. The fact that poor working methods are used in order to be so cheap does not matter. Pigs and chickens are shut up in very unnatural circumstances in too small a floorspace where they get in each other’s way. That saves space and hence costs. Quite rightly individuals and organisations have campaigned for years to highlight this fact. For that reason it is positive that some more political interest is at last emerging in animal suffering caused by intensive livestock farming. Every regulation that brings some improvement will have my support, although I am far from being convinced that approval of this proposal will put an end to unnecessary animal suffering. - Report Brok (A5-0209/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I am delighted to see that you give equal status to Porto Alegre and Davos. The , like Mr Désir and a few others, we who were behind the Porto Alegre parliamentary forum, are delighted to learn that alterglobalisation is beginning to find an echo among you. I believe that President Lula has, indeed, taken the right step, because he came to present first to Porto Alegre what he was going to defend in Davos, in other words, the reconstruction of a fairer economic order. I feel that this democratic, socially aware, political move is a step along the right road: civil society should have its say first and then the decision-makers of the global economy. Market capitalism cannot continue to be the dominant form of politics. I would remind you – even if this is perhaps a sophism – that democracy and politics normally take precedence over economic considerations. It is vital to prove this, as that would also make it possible to avoid a pre-emptive war such as that proposed by the Bush government, which is largely subservient to multinationals which have a far greater need for oil than for ideas. Lastly, these same multinationals want at all costs to reappropriate sustainable development and the common goods belonging to all mankind such as water, air and energy. It seems to me, however, that in Cancun, Commissioner, you should help us to defend our idea of globalisation. It is right that we should concern ourselves with current GATS negotiations, because they represent quite a risk, and it is right that the southern States should know that we support them with regard to each individual’s right to food, drinking water and breathable air.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, thank you very much for your detailed reply. I must say that I agree with the way in which you have set things out, but there is one problem. You said, ‘... for promoting their interests through political means.’ As you know, there is a scenario, which is the subject of a great deal of discussion, whereby with institutional and constitutional change in the FYROM, i.e. by converting it into a kind of federation or confederation, political pressure could arise – especially at difficult times, such as now – for subsequent secession. It is a model which, unfortunately, we have seen and several countries backed it in the former Yugoslavia. I would like it to be made clear from your side – I think you expressed it well, but you could perhaps stress a little more – that no such way out will be given to extremists inside this country or, as you well know, outside it, to political forces in Kosovo.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, that went quicker than I thought. The BSE crisis, and later on the dioxin crisis, focused our attention on the safety of our food. In addition, the European consumer has become more critical and outspoken over the past decades. Politicians need to take this into consideration. After all, there are huge interests at stake: the certainty and safety of our primary products, and hence consumer confidence. In the coming months, too, we should therefore be looking carefully at the White Paper on food safety. Today’s regulations are a direct result of the recommendations of the BSE inquiry at the time, in which integral chain management, i.e. the ‘from-stable-to-stable’ principle, and with it the ultimate traceability of our primary raw materials, was established. The Commission proposal within the context of labelling beef follows on from temporary legislation dating back to 1997. It aims to introduce reliable and transparent identification and registration regulations for beef, as well as labelling for beef. This should also enhance consumer confidence in the quality of beef and benefit market stability. Meat should remain traceable, whether at the production or sales stage. An important idea which the Council has adopted from the EP in its common position is to bring forward the date when the labelling regulation comes into effect. The label should contain information on the animal’s region of origin, where it is born, fattened up and slaughtered. What is new is that the Council now also considers it important to mention the animal category from which the meat originates. I admit that making this compulsory could be considered normal from the point of view of the consumer, but this is not yet the case in the Netherlands, where this suggestion is met with a great deal of protest. I do not call for compulsory labelling, but for labelling on a voluntary basis. In this context, I am convinced that butchers can meet all the provisions of this proposal in a very simple manner, for example by placing a sign in their shops.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Rules of Procedure do not allow further proposals for the topical and urgent debate to be tabled at short notice. Our delegation for cooperation with Georgia was in Georgia last week. Since local government elections are taking place there on 2 June, we have enquired as to whether these elections are being conducted correctly. We have learned that two parties have already been denied permission to take part in the elections, and we have also learned just now that a further party, namely that of the former president of the Parliament who left the Shevardnadze Party to found a new one, is also not being allowed to participate in the elections. We should simply like to state the fact openly here and then, naturally, discuss the matter with the Commission and the Council. We consider this a matter of great urgency, even though our May part-session does not allow any more urgency debates, for the local elections will already be over in June. We are of the view that a reminder needs to be given about this. We should like, however, to be given still more precise information by the Council and the Commission, for we are extremely concerned that elections are being held but are not being conducted democratically. We should like to support Georgia’s cause, but the bottom line is that democracy must prevail there. I should like to have this recorded in the Minutes.

Political group: PPE-DE
We have been discussing equal pay for equal work and for work of equal value since my youth, and that is a long time ago. The ILO's Equal Remuneration Convention has existed since 1951. In the European Community the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was laid down in Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome in 1958. Yet as is always the case whenever it is a matter of justice for women in any walk of life, in implementing the principle of equal pay, the politicians are dragging their feet, as are the trade unions, unfortunately, which are still male-dominated organisations. We have had the Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women since 1975. We have action programmes and a Community framework strategy on gender equality. We have countless resolutions and guidelines. We have the Beijing Platform for Action adopted by the Fourth UN World Conference on Women in 1995. And now we have this report which – in view of the fact that the average wage gap between men and women in the EU still stands at almost 30% – is by no means unnecessary, for on women's issues in particular, we know that constant dripping wears away stone. In the 17 recitals and 19 paragraphs contained in this resolution, which I support, we have put forward a great many sound and useful proposals designed to eliminate this wage gap, which continues even after retirement and especially affects women with lower pension provision, thus resulting in lifelong discrimination. It is clear that action is required from the social partners in particular. However, what is also required is courage from the women concerned and their representatives, especially the women's organisations. In reality, we have sound legal bases on which to act against wage discrimination.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, when Mr Obiang, the President of Equatorial Guinea, visited Brussels two years ago and met President Prodi, he gave him commitments to democratisation and to respect human rights, commitments which have been blatantly flouted, something made crystal clear by the trial – if it can be called a trial – that has just taken place. Furthermore, it is also true that the European Union, only a few months ago, voted in the United Nations Human Rights Commission for a Resolution stating that the regime in Equatorial Guinea was taking steps towards democracy and towards respecting human rights. I think that what has happened clearly shows that the commitments Mr Obiang gave to Mr Prodi have not been met. And the issue is this: is Mr Prodi – as President of the Commission – going to speak to Mr Obiang – as President of Equatorial Guinea – to demand explanations as to the degree to which those commitments are being complied with in view of this trial – I repeat, if it can be called a trial – that has taken place?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my colleague Mrs Breyer likes to compare this loan facility we are speaking of to state support for one form of energy production which creates market distortions. Sometimes it seems that the meaning of the word ‘loan’ was forgotten whilst the analysis was being conducted. The other theme has been the market distortions that result from systems of financial support. How much are renewable energy sources being subsidised? Are we actually talking about loans, where every cent is paid back with interest? There has been talk of the existence of other kinds of facilities. The Euratom loan scheme has served us Western Europeans for very many years. In recent years the benefits have been channelled mainly in the direction of the candidate countries. It is true that in the 1970s and 1980s nuclear power plants were built in Western Europe with the help of these loans. Loans for building new capacity, however, have not been used for a long time. The best example of this is funding for a new unit to be constructed in a certain country in northern Europe. Private investors were interested in building new nuclear power facilities so that a 1 600 megawatt unit would have had funding for the construction of a facility with 2 500 megawatt capacity. This is indisputable proof, if ever there was any, that Euratom loans are not needed to finance new capacity. There is nothing wrong with nuclear power plants in the candidate and other Eastern European countries receiving funding in this way to improve the safety of installations. It is interesting to hear Mrs Breyer encourage the Group of the to adopt a campaign against nuclear safety. I am in favour of the Euratom loan scheme continuing. It is important for improving standards of safety in nuclear installations in third countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to start by offering my very sincere thanks to the President-in-Office of the Council and to the Commission for the information which they have given us about the Union mission to North Korea. The European Union must, indeed, be aware of its own stake in the future of the Korean peninsular. Last January, the European Parliament asked both the Council and the Commission, following a visit from an ad hoc delegation, to take the measures needed to consolidate the policy of rapprochement between North and South Korea and open up North Korea to the international community. In calling for the normalisation of relations between the European Union and North Korea, we did not mean to imply that we recognised a political regime which is a far cry from the fundamental values which we preach; we meant to imply that we support the so-called sunshine policy which President Kim Du-Yung has inaugurated with much courage and determination, because we realised that, without the active support of the international community, this policy would be doomed to failure in the long term and would quickly run out of steam in the short term. That is why we appreciate the efforts being made by the Council and the Commission to achieve normalisation with a view to laying down coherent lines of action as regards the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I was interested to note that the European Union insisted on extending the rapprochement initiated with South Korea and the commitments made to it to Pyongyang. We have always insisted that the entire nation should have access to foreign aid and that NGOs should be able to work in satisfactory conditions. Other measures, such as granting visas and working facilities to European journalists would help to create the trust needed to put this rapprochement on a more stable footing. I should like to close simply by saying that we must not overlook the fact that the process initiated will be long and gradual but that it is important in order to maintain the peace in this part of the world on which our own stability and security also depend.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since we are discussing the joint resolution on the Balkan syndrome, I would just like to point out that my own name and that of my group have been included erroneously on this joint resolution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank all the French Members of this House most warmly and congratulate them on the French Government's action in deporting from France the Imam of Venissieux on the grounds of his misogynistic utterances. For a woman in politics, such as I am, having spent decades contending for women's rights, it is immensely reassuring to know that it will no longer be possible, in this European Union of ours, to call for human rights – for that is what women's rights are – to be disregarded. Right now, I would rather like to sing the 'Marseillaise', but perhaps it will be sufficient for me to say, 'Vive la France!'

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to express the point of view of working women not only because it is on them, of all women, that the burden of social organisation weighs most heavily, but also because the workers’ movement can take pride in having been the first to fight for the recognition of equality between men and women. Long before the ruling class gave women the right to vote, the workers’ movement had already, within its own organisation, given leading women the place they deserved. The fate of working women is linked to the status of the working class as a whole. It is women who are the main victims of insecure employment, enforced part-time work and the low salaries that are paid for such work. What is unacceptable is that insecure employment, enforced part-time work and low salaries are allowed to exist. Speeches about equality between men and women will continue to be just so much hot air as long as countless working families are deprived of adequate housing and as long as there are not enough public amenities, child care centres and nursery schools. In all areas, European institution policy is no more favourable to the interests of working women than Member State policy. Although I will vote in favour of the report because of the good intentions that are stated in it, they are still nothing more than good intentions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, last Saturday Marie-José the last Queen of Italy and daughter of King Albert of this country died. She was a recognised democrat and historian. Sadly she did not live to see her exiled son and grandson allowed to return to their homeland. Thus her funeral shamefully could not take place in Italy as they would not be permitted to attend. This Italian constitutional article has no place in modern Europe and is in clear breach of the freedom of movement provided for under the European treaties. I have three times attempted to gain the support of this Parliament in condemning this law. The issue is being decided at present by the Court of Human Rights and will not go away. I call upon the Italian government to use the opportunity afforded by the sad death of Queen Marie-José to fulfil its legal obligations to the European Union and grant the two male princes the same rights as every other Italian citizen and let them go home. (The Minutes were approved) (1)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to join in the congratulations just expressed to our rapporteur. At this time of night I cannot match him in using words skilfully in the form of puns as he did in his speech, but, well done! I am pleased that we will be able to present this to the public as a move towards efficiency and clarity. This will not get big headlines in newspapers for the rapporteur or anyone else, but it is extremely important for the public to have clarity and security in the measuring instruments used as listed for items of public health, public safety, public order, protection of the environment and, indeed, the levying of taxes and duties and the protection of consumers and fair trading. All those public goods need accurate, trustworthy measurements, and in the European Union we need to get rid of the barriers to trade that might exist without such instruments. A quite considerable range of instruments has been mentioned, including water meters, taxi meters, exhaust-gas analysers and breathalysers. We support, as Mr Glante has said, the principle of optionality: it is quite reasonable to give Member States a choice as to whether or not they regulate. But with that choice goes a responsibility not to put up trade barriers or to be unfairly competitive. The comitology issues that concern us appear to have been solved. This is an example of the new approach to harmonisation. We have to bear in mind that there may well be technological advances or problems we have not heard or thought of, perhaps, for example, electromagnetic interference. The simplification, clarity and conciseness of the rapporteur are helpful. I am glad that the Commission agrees and I look forward to the Council of Ministers taking the same approach. The joint declaration on the procedures for ensuring conformity with the review of texts will be welcome. I am glad that the countries which will be joining us in May 2004 will have an example of how Member States can make decisions in the context of a European Union which wants fair competition and does not want barriers to trade. I am sure that they have been following this work with interest. We hope there will be an agreement at second reading. Our committee has a reputation for putting in hours of work in the form of informal trialogues. Some of us sometimes question whether we are misguided in doing that in comparison with other committees such as the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. But my belief is that, so far, we have managed in an assertive way to put across our points of view. I congratulate the rapporteur again.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I stated recently that the use of financial resources available to the European Union is probably the most complex, but at the same time, the most attractive task undertaken by the Community institutions. Improving effectiveness and transparency in the use of human resources is therefore welcome, noteworthy and justifiable. The quality of European citizenship, in other words the feeling of belonging to a supranational area of solidarity, is also reinforced by the way in which the Union’s financial pillar is used. As the budgetary authority, the European Parliament is crucial to achieving this improvement. We can therefore only praise the Commission’s efforts intended to improve the criminal-law protection of the Community’s financial interests and particularly to create a European Prosecutor. In order for the reforms we are now examining to lead to effective protection of the European taxpayers’ money and also of the Union’s credibility to ensure this protection, we must make a major effort to harmonise procedures, to coordinate actions and to ensure fair and open cooperation between Member States. It is also crucial, however, that the essence of this policy is made irreversible, depending on how the Community method is used. I therefore welcome the recommendation by the rapporteur, Mrs Theato, when she maintains that criminal law cannot be envisaged as an area for Union regulation only in the third pillar and when she argues that the creation of the European Prosecutor on the basis of the first pillar could be an extremely significant step for the future structure of ‘EU Powers’.

Political group: PSE