GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Evans and Mr Karas have highlighted the significance of state aids and competition policy very clearly in this debate. In future we must remember that there are national aid schemes, in respect of internal competition, for example, which are especially important and valuable in countries with low population densities and where distances are long. I wish to raise one issue in this regard, that of transport aid. I am thinking here of my own country, for example, where the distances are long. In the north the price of fuel is 0.2 euros higher than in southern Finland. In addition, shipments of raw materials, animal feedingstuffs and similar goods are especially important as far as internal competition is concerned and issues of major importance in order that state aids may continue to support them. They are especially significant with regard to the regional economy and employment, and I hope that in future this can be made clear, so that these aids, these internal aids, which affect regional development and the regional economy, in which transport aid is a key example, might continue.

Political group: ELDR
What can Europe do when it is time to make decisions on the Iraqi crisis? I say Europe, Mr President, rather than Parliament or the Council or the Commission, and I am thinking of the European people, who are overwhelmingly against a war to disarm Iraq, let alone a war to change the Iraqi regime. The European Council of 17 February took a stand: war should only be a very last resort and, anyway, there should be no war without a specific United Nations mandate. Let us remember: Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the Security Council to act against Saddam Hussein because of the terrible crimes he has committed against humanity. We strongly reaffirm this, because that dictatorship has left an appalling trail of blood in its wake. That is why Iraq must be disarmed, but only through the UN; the democratisation of Iraq must be supported, but only through the UN. Unilateral war will split the UN; it will split the Atlantic Alliance; and it will throw Europe into crisis. We say to some of our European brothers that a vote in the Security Council contrary to the Brussels document, contrary to the will of Parliament and contrary to the Commission’s opinion would strike at the heart of Europe. Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union lays down that the Member States that are also permanent members of the Security Council should ensure that the positions and interests of the Union are upheld. What happened in the case of the former Yugoslavia? The Security Council could not decide on intervention in Kosovo, but NATO carried it out with the agreement of the European Council. Also in question are the authority and prestige of our friend and ally, the United States, and also the brotherhood between our peoples, never so close as after 11 September, but today never so threatened on the eve of an unnecessary, unjust and unlawful war. The United States should realise that the people’s elected representatives meeting here are fighting against anti-Americanism and therefore ask the United States to show more respect for Europe’s ideas and convictions. Mr President, if Iraq is disarmed without war, it will be a victory for reason, a victory for the UN, and also a victory for the military pressure of the United States and the UK and for the endeavour to oppose unilateralism by France, Germany and Europe. If there is war, it will be a disaster. Let us unite, therefore, against the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and for the freedom of the Iraqi people; let us keep war away from the young ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, thank you for your contribution. I would urge you not to falter with regard to the non-vaccination policy pursued by the Commission since the beginning of the 1990s. I should like to ask you, Commissioner, if it is not correct that, when we implemented the single market in 1992, there was an agreement that the national veterinary borders should apply in the event of a disease breaking out in any of the Member States. If this is the case, I would urge the Commission, including you and the Commissioner for Trade, to make a far greater effort to ensure that some of the countries which really depend on exports to non-EU countries – and here I am thinking primarily of Denmark – will again be able to export to the United States, Japan, Russia and the many other countries which have stopped their imports from the EU, an action which is basically a technical trade barrier.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to add my congratulations to the rapporteur and most especially to the petitioner, Louise McVay, on her initiative and determination in getting this matter to the European Parliament. It takes resolve to get a matter on the floor of the European Parliament, and for someone suffering from the ravages of this disease, it shows outstanding strength of will. I am also pleased that it is the European Parliament's petitions procedure that has enabled that to happen. Allow me to tell a personal story. About ten years ago, my sister-in-law, married to my twin brother, invited me to their home for the weekend. She asked me to look at my twin brother. He did not appear to be standing quite correctly – something was wrong with his balance. She said that it was my job to convince him to go to a doctor. I did that job and the early stages of MS were first of all diagnosed. That subsequently was proven not to be the case: he had a related disease, called ataxia nervosa. Like MS, it attacks the mobility of the patient, not the thinking part of the brain at all. In two horrible years he was confined to a wheelchair and finally the disease killed him. In one respect he was very fortunate: he had a great employer. I will name them: Shell UK. They paid for treatment, a chauffeur to drive him to and from work and for a personal assistant to operate his computer and to push his wheelchair. They had the sense, the decency and the foresight and, I suppose, the resources to treat a disabled person as a real person. That is all that anybody asks and that is what this report asks. I have told this story for two reasons. Firstly, to remind all of us who are fit and active today that tomorrow we could find ourselves in a wheelchair. If that happens as a result of an accident, often compensation is paid. If it happens as a result of disease, there is no insurance or compensation and you are in the hands of society – people like you and me. Secondly, for some diseases there is no treatment – or it is only patchily available – and there is very limited research. Further research is needed and we must be prepared to encourage and support that research as requested in this report. Louise is right: if there is therapy that helps, for example beta interferons, then it must be made available to all sufferers. I am particularly grateful to the rapporteur for putting forward the oral amendments that would allow the pressure from this petition to be used to help not just the hundreds of thousands of sufferers from multiple sclerosis, but also sufferers from other similar mobility-impairment and neuro-degenerative diseases, who need help too. We must learn from each other and we must learn to help Louise and the hundreds of thousands like her.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my question referred to the articles of the Treaty which oblige all of us – the Council, Parliament, the Governments and also the Presidency-in-Office of the Council and the Commission – to ensure compliance with human rights. You do not wish to give me an answer, but I would like to remind you of something which I imagine you will know much better than me. If I remember rightly, in Ireland, before you achieved independence, you had a provisional status, which led to a great conflict within your society between radicals and moderates. You resolved that situation by consulting the Irish citizens, that is, by means of a referendum. We have a situation in the Basque Country which is also difficult and worrying, and which is creating great tension and violence. We are asking that it be the citizens who can give their opinion and decide, but the Spanish Government is preventing this. It is also threatening and changing the laws in order to imprison those who advocate this referendum: a consultation of the citizens, which is the most democratic thing imaginable.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the new directive on investment services seeks to order competition between three major structures: exchanges, the Internet and companies using internalisation. Competition between them over processing transactions will intensify as the European financial market becomes more integrated. Everyone knows that the City of London, which is also an aircraft carrier for American investment banks, has a strong lead where internalisation is concerned. Other companies such as Deutsche Bank or ABN-AMRO are launching out into the trade with ambitious business plans. I observe that in carrying out our task as legislators we have singularly lacked a sound economic analysis clarifying the nature of the competition entered into and its implications. For example, do we want the small European markets stretching from the South to the East to be piloted by a handful of global players in London? In this House we are accountable to the general interest and not the interests of individual countries. That is why we have supported two main principles: quality of information and fair competition. Businesses that use internalisation harness huge resources, but they do not form the market. They manipulate it but they need it, which is why pre-trade transparency is crucial to the quality of price formation, in particular to prevent volatility, speculation and insider dealing. The Commission proposal applied this principle of pre-trade transparency that Mrs Villiers initially wished to abolish. Later she accepted it. She has shown great professionalism, it has to be acknowledged. She has given ground, but a large number of traps and mines were adopted in the committee on her initiative that drain this requirement for transparency of much of its meaning and create legal uncertainty. This applies to the definition of businesses practising internalisation, bonds and the size of orders, the exemption for eligible counterparties and the notion of price improvement. As it stands, the report that was adopted proposes a system of regulation that is inferior to that enjoyed by the United States. That is why we have requested a number of separate votes so as to remove passages that we feel are harmful. Our aim is not to conclude this at first reading at any price nor simply to seek a compromise between the various interests, but to adopt a resolution that really does serve the common good.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I totally agree with your decision. I believe that what we are dealing with here is an act of political faith, in view of the fact that we are attempting to defend the existence of the European Company Statute, without prejudice to the fundamental issues arising from the legal base.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, I would not dream of trying to bounce you into making an announcement, but I am offering advice. You will find that, certainly in the committee, when the two Groups called for a separate vote in order to keep the amendments on the plenary agenda, they did not vote against a single one. Although the Rules of Procedure allow any Group to call for a separate vote on any amendment, we ought to try and flush out which ones they wish to vote truly separately on. I do not think we will find that there is a single negative vote in the two Groups against the amendments. There is a high degree of collusion, as others have said, in terms of one Group calling for split votes on all the others' amendments and that Group calling for split votes on all their colleagues' amendments. It is an attempt to subvert democracy and filibuster to a degree which is ludicrous. Mr President, you have your responsibilities, but you and your services are in danger of being subverted.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is no split between Europe and the USA, as it is claimed. Instead, the split is between France and Germany, principally, and 19 other pro-US new European governments. Efforts must now be made to tone down the rhetoric on both sides of the Atlantic. I salute the courage of EU candidate countries who have backed the coalition with specialist forces. At a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy last week, Britain was accused of being a rogue state headed by a war criminal. This shows the 'Alice in Wonderland' level the debate has now reached. By joining forces with Germany in the way it did, France has alienated America, undermined the UN, sent the wrong signals – signals of division – to Baghdad and exposed the impossibility of ever achieving a single foreign and security policy. Saddam Hussein has attempted illegally to acquire weapons of mass destruction for years. Regime change is the only way to ensure a disarmed and peaceful Iraq and prevent ongoing brutalisation of its people by the Butcher of Baghdad. The Allies will install a representative government and must prevent refugees flowing out and instability in the region, as well as facilitating the return of the Iraqi diaspora to rebuild their country in safety. We must guarantee that its massive oil wealth be used to build prosperity for its peoples, not for arms purchases. This war is morally and politically justifiable and its legality is vested in current UN Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. However, the appeasers in this House might like to explain why they embraced a war in Kosovo that involved no weapons of mass destruction or threats to neighbouring states and that had no UN authority whatsoever, and yet find it so difficult to take action against a genocidal dictator who has started two wars responsible for the deaths of almost a million people and who has gassed his own people. We must end this tyranny and free the Iraqi people once and for all. On the Lisbon Process, I am delighted that the single market and the need for regulatory impact assessments is now back on the agenda. My party will continue to oppose tax harmonisation. Nevertheless, in this area in particular, action will speak louder than words.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like very much to thank Mrs Ries for the sterling work she has done on this matter. It is of course a good example of the European Parliament’s being able to promote the protection of the environment and of public health in Europe. The Commission only proposed a ban on the marketing and use of one of the dangerous flame retardants, pentaBDE, and, following demands by Parliament, the directive was successfully extended so that the final result arrived at by the conciliation committee also includes two further flame retardants. With regard to octaBDE, the risk assessment has clearly revealed that the substance entails obvious risks for the environment and public health, and it has now also, happily, been agreed to implement an immediate ban on the use of this substance. As far as the third substance, decaBDE, is concerned, the Member States and the Commission, on the other hand, initially maintained their opposition to a ban. A majority of the conciliation committee chose to defer to that state of affairs, so that decaBDE is only included in a recital in the directive and – if, quoting Mrs Ries, I may put it this way – has only been given a yellow card. It is safe to say that it will be the environment and public health that, for some time still to come, will now bear the risk of the use of this substance. I find that very unfortunate, and it illustrates of course the importance, in the chemicals area, of our being able to reverse the burden of proof so that it is the producers who have to show that the substances they use pose no risk to the environment and to human beings. Unlike Mrs Schörling, however, I believe that the outcome, whereby the result of the conciliation is being adopted, is, in spite of everything, a clear improvement upon the current situation. That is why I shall vote in favour of the conciliation proposal and the outcome of the conciliation in the final vote tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the proposals for the reform of the CAP made by Mr Fischler are being driven by the World Trade Organisation, and farmers need to realise that should be their real target. I am disturbed that the Commissioner shows more concern for trade liberalisation than good farming practice. EU environmental and food safety laws can form a safety net between farming and the World Trade Organisation. Farmers need to wake up and stop opposing environmental legislation, such as the nitrates directive, and realise that these laws could protect them against the WTO. The principle of cross-compliance, which means compliance with environmental and safety laws, is an important part of Parliament's proposals. The Commission is right to propose making compliance with relevant food safety rules a must for receiving subsidies. However, it is vital that the same standards apply to imported foodstuffs, otherwise the antibiotics only just banned in the EU could make their way back onto our plates. Parliament's compromise shows the way forward and contains a substantial shift of money towards rural development. It accepts modulation while differentiating between advantaged and disadvantaged regions and, therefore, will give better compensation for poorer regions – and this is welcome. However, we also need to prevent the dumping of CAP-supported goods outside the European Union, which drives down world prices at great cost to the developing world and effectively prevents the most needy farmers from accessing European markets.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to ask the Commissioner a question. He said that the only problem for a couple in a registered partnership was when one of them was a foreign national. If they are both EU nationals, under Article 18, they could both independently move to another State. That is true, but what they lose is the status of registered partnership and the tax or social rights that go with that - for instance, the right to be recognised as next of kin if one of them is in hospital. His answer does not address that issue. It is not just an immigration question, it is also a question of recognition as a family. I do not think he can just get around that, and I believe the mutual recognition argument has strong force, as in other sectors like criminal law.

Political group: ELDR
An agriculture that is increasingly relying on the world market will try to produce as cheaply as possible, at the expense of the quality of work, of nature, of the environment and of animal welfare. The least productive regions will be abandoned first. Those are areas that have been uninhabited over a long period, because it requires more effort to earn a living. The people who had nevertheless finally settled there, were the outcasts of society. Often they were ex-convicts, ethnic minorities and losers in the battle for the best land. The least productive areas where the losers wound up are not only the mountain areas, but also low-lying wetlands, that is, old bogs, the bottom of which consists of peat, a water retaining vegetable material that, when dry, shrinks and disappears. Farmers in mountains and wetlands now play an important role in nature conservation, recreation and water management. In a free, unprotected market, they are doomed to disappear. Then their working and living area will not return to primeval nature, but will go to the dogs. Mechanising and destroying the landscape to allow it to be cultivated more easily is not an acceptable alternative. That is why I should like to back the proposed supporting measures, but to register an objection if these are limited to the mountains alone.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, for more than a year, a majority in this Parliament – although the Group of the European People’s Party are of the opposite opinion – has claimed that it is a serious violation of the fundamental right of European citizens to data protection to demand that all European airlines are obliged to process European citizens’ data contained in their computerised reservation systems as requested by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and in line with US legislation. On top of that, there is not even any US legislation since no US law exists to protect private data. We are therefore obliged to process our data, the data of our citizens, as requested by an administrative body of a third country. We therefore want an international agreement that grants rights. This controversy has been going on for a year and the Commission, even now, repeatedly says that the directive has not been amended, but on this basis it has been breached. This is the opinion of the majority of Parliament. This is why we are calling for a preliminary decision by the Court of Justice. I do not even believe that we need wait for further news tomorrow because, I reiterate, we have carried on for a year or more. The only way to solve the matter – as to if it is true or if it is not true that a right in the Treaty has been breached – is to ask the Court of Justice for a ruling in advance, before signing the agreement, so that we do not end up nullifying an agreement that has already been drawn up, since this would damage relations. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, forests play an essential role in preserving the balance of our ecology and are a sustainable resource, albeit in the long term. Forests are, furthermore, an imaginary, mythological and symbolic asset, which we should not forget. Although there has been a certain recuperation of the area dedicated to forests in the European Union, every year thousands and thousands of hectares fall victim to acidification. Year after year, huge areas of forest burn in Europe, annually destroying, on average, around 1% of the total forested area. Biodiversity is also affected, and the situation of various plant species is worrying. Therefore, the importance of these two regulations is unquestionable, despite the fact that the Community appropriations involved are very modest. As has already been pointed out, the regulation establishing an action framework for the prevention of forest fires and the reduction of the area burnt is undoubtedly of particular importance to the south of Europe. This regulation is specifically aimed at the cofinancing of systems for the prevention, monitoring and provision of information about fires, as well as for identifying their causes. It is therefore extremely important. Geographers understand this very well. The most southerly part of Mediterranean Europe is threatened by a process of physical desertification, in the literal sense of the word. The climatic phenomenon which originated in the Sahara desert has not stopped at the Mediterranean Sea and is spreading to the Iberian, Italian and Balkan peninsulas. Mediterranean woodlands, which act as a curtain, reducing the impact of this phenomenon, are being mercilessly destroyed by these fires. This issue of forests does not only concern the countries of the south, whose territories are affected, in the same way, of course, that the defence of the Nordic forests is not only of exclusive interest to the Nordic countries. The countries of the south, more than any other part of Europe, urgently need a policy for the protection of forests. I wish to congratulate the rapporteur on her work and say that I support her proposals and her objectives.

Political group: PSE