GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, what has happened to Mrs Müller should actually have repercussions. The word ‘duress’ occurs to me, as a lawyer. I am full of admiration for her, and I shall most certainly be supporting the common position. I also feel, however, that this position touches the limits of moral acceptability. You see, I come from a country where vitamins are still available in pharmacies only. When anyone goes into a chemist’s shop and buys vitamins, the chemist will say, ‘Don’t take too much, and please read the enclosed instruction leaflet’. It will cause great confusion in my country if that all changes. It will create the impression that vitamin supplements are really quite harmless after all. This is not the case. Vitamins have side-effects. The impact, of course, is not immediate. It is like when you drink too much. Not until you come staggering out of the pub do you begin to feel the effects on your health. It may have tasted good, but it will catch up with you at some point. We are far more aware than we were ten years ago that vitamins do indeed have adverse effects. I really do find it irresponsible to set them loose on consumers in this way. To tell you the truth, Mrs McKenna, I am deeply disappointed. I thought you would be encouraging us to eat oranges, lemons, bananas, curly kale and other health foods. No, you are recommending artificial substances to us, substances that are simply mass-produced by an industry where many people earn great fortunes. I fail to understand your thinking. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not wish to go into the content of this particular opinion poll, although it certainly would have been wise for the poll to have asked what people thought of the Palestinian State and of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. It is not a bad thing, however, that people know what Europe thinks. I would, in general, encourage the Commission to publish information – of this or any other nature – on the views of Europeans, to show the importance of opinion on our continent. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the decisions made at the Helsinki European Council on the development of a common security and defence policy are open to interpretation. Many aligned countries believe that the formation of a common military force would mean the start of a common defence arrangement. Their plans are clear. Under the treaties, the aim of a common foreign and security policy for the Union is to safeguard its independence and integrity, as well as strengthen its security in all its forms. The military force to be established is, in their view, a tool to realise these aims: a common army for a Union that is becoming a federation. In the opinion of the non-aligned Member States, only the creation of a system for crisis management has been decided upon. They stress that each country should decide separately on its involvement. They believe that they have no obligation to become involved in enforcing peace. Non-aligned Member States do not want the Union to become a military alliance or military superpower. These differences of opinion and interpretation must be taken into account. It is also wise in security policy to establish differentiated integration. Combined troops of the European Union should only be used for crisis management. Countries which are part of the federal core, as proposed by Messrs Delors, Giscard d’Estaing, Schmidt and Fischer, could create a defence community, to form a strong European pillar within the context of NATO. The understandable and commendable aim by the European NATO countries to develop a European defence identity should thus be realised within the context of NATO itself. Decisions relating to security and defence policy are immensely important, and should therefore be made with the emphasis on openness and democracy.

Political group: ELDR
We Moderates believe that cultural policy is not best conducted at EU level. Culture is a part of our society that operates best without political interference. We are therefore voting against this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
The outcome of the Copenhagen Summit has left a bitter taste in everyone’s mouth. The Europe that the Heads of State are building fluctuates between powerlessness and contempt. Powerlessness first, when we see that the European Union is incapable of achieving a fair and lasting peace in the Middle East or even of demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya or of French troops from Côte d'Ivoire. It is also powerless because the EU has shown itself to be incapable of preventing the predictable shipwreck of the oil tanker Prestige, which was 25 years old and flying a flag of convenience off the coast of Galicia. We then see contempt when the Eurocrats meeting in the Convention take decisions concerning 450 million citizens on basic constitutional texts without involving or consulting these citizens. Contempt has been shown towards the ten new countries which will have to undergo further waves of liberalisation and privatisation. Contempt for the populations of Turkey who, according to Giscard d'Estaing, do not share ‘the Christian values of European civilisation’. The emphatic speeches of our leaders on the historic nature of this summit did not drown out those who, in their thousands, brought the values of another Europe onto the streets of Copenhagen – the values of democracy, peace and social justice. With them, here as I did there, I have rejected the outcome of this summit. - Safety at sea and measures to alleviate the effects of the Prestige disaster (B5-0665/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I can only endorse the comments made by Mrs Pack and Mr Swoboda, but I feel that the problems involving amendments to the schedule are also due to what I would call poor timetabling, as we never seem able to keep to the set agenda. We are continually having to postpone the discussion of reports. I think this is related to the fact that we are not managing our time well enough and that we should perhaps also change and reassess a number of ways in which the House operates. I believe, however, that cutting the part-session to four days is the main reason for all these departures from the agenda. If we cut the plenary part-session working time to three and a half days, the next thing we shall be down to two days. What is the point of the European Parliament? It is up to all the Members of the House to show how serious they are in their work, in line with the commitments they have made as Members of Parliament. This is the issue being raised again. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by congratulating Mrs Theorin on her excellent own-initiative report, which deals with an important and topical issue, i.e. how the fundamental participation of women in negotiations to resolve conflicts can change the world and turn the dominant culture of confrontation and violence into a culture of peace, dialogue and democratic conflict resolution. This is made possible by the fact that, historically, women as a whole have stood for non-violence, have different experiences from men of war and conflict and devote all their time to protecting life with dialogue, reconciliation and negotiation. These pacific qualities in women could provide an alternative solution, the basis for the foundations of a new civilisation, a civilisation of peace, in which dialogue is protected at all levels and from which war and violence are excluded as a means of resolving differences. The absence of women, and of the pacific system of women, is all the more noticeable in areas in crisis, such as the Middle East, which I visited recently. I am convinced that if women, both Palestinian and Israeli, had a say and a role in the peace process, there is every likelihood that a fair and viable solution to the Palestinian question would have been found and we would not now be facing the present crisis, which is the outcome of 7 whole years of failed negotiation. In the case of Iraq, which I visited as a member of a mission to contest the embargo in practice, women would not, under any circumstances, have put political or military objectives above human life and would not have sacrificed 6,000 innocent children a month in the name of any form of political, economic or strategic interest in the area. That is why this dimension needs to be taken into account when drawing up European Union policies in the future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this misunderstanding has already been cleared up in the Committee on Budgetary Control and I am therefore most surprised that it should be raised yet again. We discussed this quite clearly during the vote in committee. The matter was clarified and I therefore assumed that plenary would also understand that the English version applies and that the other languages also refer to “competent authorities”. This new demand is therefore somewhat beyond me. (Applause) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0099/2001) by Mr Folias, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1999 financial year Section I – European Parliament/Ombudsman [SEC(00) 539 – C5-0312/2000 – 2000/2157(C)]

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, for this excellent and extensive report. However, as she herself did, I would like to point out a few problems which, in our opinion, are still important and which need to be remedied. The allocation criteria, which are based on the average number of asylum applicants and recognised refugees and the nature of the projects, are perhaps not adequate to achieve a fair distribution of the burden. In practice, the countries which take in the greatest number of refugees will probably receive the most funds. Insofar as it goes that is okay, but it should not mean that the other EU States go short and, ultimately, that the refugees in these states, who are not particularly numerous, should be the ones to miss out on the benefits. We must also deal with the actual money to be allocated, which must be in proportion to the stated objectives. Financing must be ensured up to 2004. So far, the balance sheet has not made any clear statement for the period after 2001. If we can resolve this issue, then we should do so. Only in this way can the European Refugee Fund be used sensibly and efficiently.

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. – Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mrs Boumediene-Thiery on her far-reaching report. I should record that in many ways my party is not altogether happy with the Charter of Fundamental Rights as it came in and, especially in view of what we have heard from both the President-in-Office and the Commissioner, we have concerns that it could become yet another framework for regulation and bureaucracy, when common sense and good manners should be allowed to have their individual way. With the imminence of our elections, we are all aware that the largest party in Europe is now the apathy party. We are very conscious that the forecasts for turnout in June are going to be even lower than in the past. A major task facing the next Parliament will be to bring the citizens of the new Europe to a greater understanding of, and involvement with, the institutions. And they are their institutions, not our institutions. There are a number of methods by which citizens can make their voices heard. They can apply directly to their elected national governments, which make up the Council; to their Commissioner nominated by their elected government; to us, as elected representatives; to the European Ombudsman; and also to the Committee on Petitions of this Parliament. It is on behalf of that committee that I have submitted an opinion on this report. We in the Committee on Petitions have noticed how often we are able to sort out things which should have been sorted out at a national, or even sometimes a regional, level. However, the continuing existence of the Committee on Petitions provides a very useful safety valve and stopgap, and, uniquely among Parliament's committees, its work will continue over the interregnum into the new Parliament. Some of you may have noticed that there is a work of art – I assume it is a work of art – in the centre of the tower building courtyard: a glass globe, approximately two metres in diameter. From a distance it seems simple and transparent, but the closer you get to it, the more complicated the construction appears and the more opaque the surface. This is a superb, but ironic, symbol of both this Parliament and the European Union. I therefore suggest that it is the job of the new House and the new Commission to make the present institutions work and to simplify their relationships with citizens. This would do much to meet the objectives laid out by the President-in-Office and to ensure that we, when we are re-elected, have the support of our citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, behind the tide of black oil being suffered today by Galicia and which on other occasions has been suffered by other European coasts, there is always a tide of black money which should be investigated. These black oil slicks and this black money always involve groups with structures much more like mafias than like businesses, made up of companies with ridiculous assets in order to evade responsibilities and covered by insurance which is also ridiculous. These groups are always protected by legislation which is lax from environmental, commercial and fiscal points of view, and Gibraltar is no exception. The port of Gibraltar supplies much more fuel than the port of Algeciras, amongst other things because less harbour duties are paid there and because – as the Commissioner has acknowledged – maritime safety and environmental rules are applied much less rigorously and, thirdly, because less tax is paid. I am not of course referring to special taxes, because any first-year law student knows that the fuel used in maritime transport is exempt from the value added tax on hydrocarbons. The problem is that direct taxes are not paid either, taxes on companies, which also have an impact on prices: 35% in Algeciras and nothing in Gibraltar, as Commissioner Monti knows very well. I would like to ask whether or not there are tax differences in Gibraltar when compared to Algeciras. Bearing in mind that there cannot be differences in relation to special taxes, there can be differences in relation to taxation as a whole, which has an impact on costs, as you will be aware, every time you go out to lunch or dinner and pay the bill.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the appeal is often made that the United States of America and those countries participating in its unilateral war against terrorism share common values. What they are is never spoken aloud. It is nevertheless well known that Bush’s values do not incorporate a high level of commercial ethics. There are no moral values in the United States that can be used to justify hormone-free food, plant varieties that are not genetically modified or cosmetics that have not been tested on animals. In this context the Council common position on effecting a marketing ban on animal-tested cosmetics, subject to permission by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, is untenable. At the OECD, decisions are taken on the basis of unanimity and they do not have to be explained. That makes it possible for the USA to dictate to the EU on the question of values. It would be more honest to clarify whether a marketing ban on animal-tested cosmetics is incompatible with WTO rules. If necessary the matter could be referred to the WTO’s dispute settlement procedure where a ban could be upheld without the opposing party being able to dictate the final outcome alone. The WTO must look into whether world trade is also possible with reference to ethical criteria. The European Parliament has used the same solid criteria in its desire to ban animal experiments and in its demand elsewhere for a sales ban on animal-tested cosmetics in the EU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to support Mr Wynn. I am glad to see that the Committee on Budgets is taking a responsible approach to this issue because the idea of pushing it through as urgent procedure without debate is unacceptable. We have to be very careful about how we use European taxpayers' money and we need to look to the future. A number of years ago in this Parliament it was already being said that Morocco would not agree to another agreement with the EU. We knew that then and we should have prepared for it. This situation is not unique, it is going to happen again. At the moment we are discussing a major agreement with Mauritania. The day will come when Mauritania will say to the EU that it no longer wants such an agreement. What are we going to do then? We really need to address this issue, firstly, in relation to how we arrange our common fisheries policy and, secondly, in relation to how we use public money. The way this has been rushed through is unacceptable. This is not a matter for urgent procedure because we have known for many years that this problem was coming. We need to be extremely careful about how we use European taxpayers' money. I understand the problems the fishing community has, but we need to be more responsible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this war was a foregone conclusion. Popular protest was ignored and UN backing dispensed with. Question one: where to now? Where is the world going and where do we stand, as representatives of the people and as responsible men and women, simply responsible men and women, witnessing these highly dangerous developments? Question two: if this dangerous turn of events is merely, I repeat merely, met by our wishes and/or intervention for this war to end as quickly as possible, what next? What other foregone conclusions will be applied using the same modus operandi, with us again hoping they will end quickly? President Bush maintains that he is fighting the dictator and the dictatorship, which he compares with the democracy which he and all of us serve. Question three: is our democracy so superior that we have to despise the reactions of people all over the world, trample all over international law and dismiss the contempt shown for the UN and its Security Council? Is this the difference between democracy and dictatorship? Is this the difference between dictators and democrats? Question four: this old Europe, as Mr Rumsfeld so disparagingly calls it, is making a huge effort to demonstrate that, with peace, democracy and solidarity, it can move forward and set the world an example in how to resolve international differences peacefully. Are we going to allow plans or foregone conclusions about its divisions or weakening unity to be imposed on us on the long hard road towards reconstructing our future by being tolerant and relaxing our reactions? I have posed four questions which bring me to a very simple conclusion. Forceful reaction to friends and allies dragging the world to ruin on the grounds of the misunderstood interests of a superpower which has lost the plot and asks no more than that we should bungle along with it! We too have responsibilities for this world, rooted in the democracy we serve and defend. Down with war! Long live peace between nations! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like, first of all, to congratulate the rapporteur, Yasmine Boudjenah, on her thorough and timely work, which provides us today, on the eve of the opening of negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreements, with a high-quality report on a particularly important and topical issue. Incidentally, the content of this report – and I wish to emphasise that it was given unanimous approval in the Committee on Development and Cooperation, in contrast to what Mr Schwaiger appears to be saying – and the introductory words of the rapporteur herself make my intervention easier. I shall, therefore, restrict myself to discussing a few aspects of this complex issue. First, I wish to state the need not to play down, in order to fall in line with the WTO, a partnership that has already been around for decades and which I believe must be continued and focused particularly on one key objective: the development of our more than 70 partner countries and meeting the fundamental needs of their populations. This highlights another issue: the Economic Partnership Agreements laid down in the Cotonou Agreement and the trade dimension of this agreement as a whole cannot prevail and even less replace a form of cooperation that must encompass various other fields and which, as I understand it, must be extended and seek to achieve better results than in the past. Secondly, I wish to emphasise that I consider it crucial to ensure that total respect is given to the forms, timing and means of regional integration undertaken by these countries which, as we know, are not always easy or even obvious: and that it is necessary to pay special attention to the new development that is the recently constituted African Union. And, fundamentally, I think it is crucial to ensure that there is no deterioration in the positive situation represented by the current ACP group. Thirdly, and taking account of the disparity in levels of development between the two parties in the negotiations and, in particular, the well-known limitations in terms of the ACP countries’ capacities, I wish to state that we must have studies on the predictable impacts of the new agreements on their various options and at various levels drafted and, if they are already drafted, presented as rapidly as possible, in addition to the fact that those limitations themselves reveal how crucial it is to ensure these countries special and differentiated treatment, which guarantees levels of protection able to ensure their development. Fourthly, a more specific issue, however, that I feel is important and which Mr Titley has already mentioned: I am referring to the fact that customs revenues represent a substantial, if not almost exclusive contribution to the ACP countries’ budgets, which means that the measures we adopt on trade liberalisation must take account of this extremely important fact.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, can I first congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Costa Neves and Mrs Buitenweg on their excellent presentation of the expectations for next year. I am sure that Parliament is properly under control for that period. This morning I want to concentrate on just one issue: structural funding. Why it has not yet been fully used and what should its future be? I want to be both controversial and constructive. Either through poor administration or delayed planning of what should happen and what should be approved by the European authorities, and perhaps in conjunction with the national authorities, we are behind on spending on structural funding both for inner-cities and rural areas. Now, I want to be controversial and I am spelling out that word, because I do not agree that all we should do is push back the spending and get an enormous lump in four or five years time. We should be looking ahead. When enlargement takes place, the countries coming into the European Union will be expecting structural funding; the very funding which our existing countries will be deprived of because they will not be able to benefit if we have to satisfy one budget on structural funding. In other words, the new countries will expect and should obtain funding for their requirements. My way around this is to say that the funds that have not been used so far should be lost to the system. As we have heard, this is the intention. But why not take advantage of that straight away? Why not send back the funding that has not been used to the countries who pay the contributions? They are mainly the ones hit by foot-and-mouth. They need to use that money to compensate for the crisis in rural areas.

Political group: PPE-DE