GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Brok, I agree with Mr Brok's report and I fully subscribe to the content behind the form. We need and we want to give money and we want to give it quickly. We are more than prepared to do so but certain framework conditions have to be complied with. One thing is for sure and that is that we demand that the majority in Kosovo give the present minority, i.e. the Serbs, Romas, Sinti, Bosnians etc. a chance to develop and live a proper life in this country. This will be a particularly decisive question when elections are held in autumn. How representative will these elections be? I am delighted that elections are being held, but how representative will they be if not everyone in the country can take part or those who do later flee? Secondly: another decisive point – as Mr Brok mentioned – is that we expect the Albanian majority in Kosovo to distance itself from all the small groups – not the Albanians per se in Macedonia, but the small groups, the KLA or quasi-KLA organisations up to no good in Macedonia. This is absolutely essential because Macedonia has a democracy, unlike in former Yugoslavia, where it is understandable up to a point when people take up arms in order to defend themselves against terrorism and repression. But Macedonia has a democracy, democratic potential, and the European Union in particular will help the Albanian minority, which is a large minority in Macedonia, to develop. But we expect the Albanian majority in Kosovo, with all due respect for the justified claims of their brothers and sisters in Macedonia, to distance themselves from terrorism. Thirdly: I think that, as far as economic questions are concerned, it is important for Kosovo to develop its own economic resources over the course of time. I refer in particular to the question of the mines in Trebca. I know that mines are not necessarily a modern economy's first choice nowadays, but I think that every avenue needs to be explored – even if the conditions of ownership have not been completely clarified – so that they can develop their own resources. A problem arises in this context and I am delighted that Commissioner Solbes Mira is here and I can specifically ask him. The problem which arises concerns the changeover to the euro. What will happen to the de facto currency in Kosovo and in other areas of the Balkans, but especially in Kosovo? I refer to the Deutschmark. I read in a report recently that this will cause huge problems and I should like to ask you Commissioner if the Commission has thought about this or made any announcements on this? Will the Commission address this and, if so, when, so that some form of solution can be found to this question, which is fundamental to the development of Kosovo?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Liberal group obviously endorses the text as tabled in full. Having said that, I must wonder, apart from the normal, accepted role-playing that goes on between the institutions, what good it will actually do and above all, apart from the ideas put forward by Commissioner Patten just now, what the Commission will really do. How dynamic will it be? How determined will it be? What involvement can it guarantee? I should also like to know if Commissioner Patten’s irritation at the Commission’s foreign policy might not bring about a certain change of attitude towards the issue that we are considering here. With regard to this matter, Commissioner, I harbour doubts as to the formal, practical will of the Commission as an institution, as the driving force for European construction . What you ought to do, perhaps, is to tell us quite precisely what your specific approach will be, so that in one or two months’ time, we will not have to say that the text on which we are voting has once again become dead letter at European level. I have two very specific questions. Paragraph 11 of the motion for a resolution suggests that we will be entrusting our parliamentary delegation with the task of studying the situation. Will you be producing a specific Commission document, in order to assist the work of our delegates? My second question, which concerns the very short term, is this: a special meeting of the General Affairs Council has been announced for 18 June, in order to prepare the dossier on the Mediterranean region. What exactly is the dossier that will be tabled next Sunday, concerning that region? This is the specific political follow-up that I expect, and which will perhaps enable you, Commissioner, and perhaps your fellow Commissioners too, to dispel what I called the climate of irritation where the efficiency of the Commission’s foreign policy is concerned.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am no friend of Milosevic or his government. Nevertheless I have the gravest doubts about the legitimacy of Nato's action against Yugoslavia over Kosovo, both in terms of the lack of authority from the UN Security Council and because it could have been avoided by not imposing unacceptable terms on Serbia's sovereignty at Rambouillet. The current situation in Kosovo, which is now ethnically cleansed of Serbs and Roma, speaks for itself. Should Nato not at the very least acknowledge fault for its deliberate targeting of the Belgrade TV tower and killing over 20 civilian journalists, which remains a severe moral blemish on the conduct of the war and now opens the embarrassment of a possible indictment for war crimes against our Western leaders?

Political group: PPE-DE
We shall not vote in favour of the resolution by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy as, despite the convoluted wording, the claimed concerns about human rights ill conceal purely mercenary interests. Moreover, the rapporteur himself emphasises the fact that the balance of trade is increasingly in favour of the European Union. The reason for our refusal to vote in favour of the resolution is to protest both against the conditions that the workers of this country have to endure, against the oppression of the Kurdish people and against the failure of the Turkish State to respect basic freedoms. Having said that, it is not only in Turkey that the rights of workers and basic freedoms are trampled underfoot. In no way do we consider membership of the European Union as an honour that a State should deserve, or indeed a guarantee of democracy. Also, if the incorporation of Turkey into the European Union meets the requirements of the large industrial and commercial groups, which are European primarily and Turkish only as a secondary consideration, it will in no way improve the fate of the working classes in this country, any more than the European Union has protected workers in the countries already integrated from unemployment and the deterioration of their living conditions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, our lengthy debate today has demonstrated that one topic on which we are taking a very positive line is the role of the regions in the European Union, and this has now, of course, been recognised in the Lamassoure Report. It is planned that a special report on the role of the regions should be introduced, but I do think that our long debate might also have the result that, tomorrow morning, we get together and reconsider whether what we have just said might yet, in rather more definite form – on which point various groups have submitted amendments – be incorporated into the report. The second point I would like to address concerns the powers reserved to the EU. Mr Lamassoure quite rightly pointed out that external economic relations certainly belong in this category, being a very important area, and one in which the state of affairs is such that the Commission can arrange things properly, with the Council of Ministers helping with the orientation, but Parliament, in utter contrast to the US Congress, has almost no opportunity to influence matters. The practical cooperation that we engage in with the Commission is excellent, but I believe that things must not remain the way they are. We need to come off better out of the dividing-up of these competences, as this is a matter of particular importance to this institution of ours. Perhaps some consideration, which is certainly necessary, could yet be given to this topic as well in the Convention. In any case, I think the regions are an important subject. Let me thank Mr Lamassoure very warmly for his excellent report. We are, though, in my opinion, a bit too timid when it comes to the regions. We might be expected to do a bit more.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wholeheartedly support this report by Mrs Jensen. The call to increase the EU's fund for job creation comes at a time when the EU is attempting to coordinate its employment strategies by the so-called open method of coordination. This fund could do much to bolster these efforts and consolidate the work under way since the Lisbon dot.com Summit. Moreover, the report also recognises the valid and worthwhile role that local and regional authorities can play in the process of job creation. It is only when we work with such authorities, who have vital in-depth knowledge of regional employment needs and peculiarities at their disposal, that we shall be able to reap the potential benefits outlined in this report. Report Thorning-Schmidt (A5-0320/2001):

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is actually a pity about the great amount of work done by the Commission and by the rapporteur, who has indeed taken a great deal of trouble, because, at the end of the day, tomorrow's vote will not result in a satisfactory outcome. So this sixth attempt is a real loss. I would like to make use of the opportunity afforded by this short speech to refer to two things. I get the impression that, with the avowed intention of thoroughly justifiably protecting small businesses – some of which are very small indeed – we will end up back with a situation we very often encounter on agricultural issues, where the small players are used as a pretext while the big players can continue to safeguard their position. Please do not misunderstand me. I am very much in favour of maintaining the small distilleries and the arrangements for benefits in kind, especially in the form in which they exist in Germany, but within bounds, and for the benefit of the small rather than of the great. I would like to end with the topic of biofuels, one that is of the utmost importance. I believe that biofuels represent a great opportunity for agriculture. There is still far more that we can do in this area than has been done to date, and that is through research into them, into the conditions to be imposed on them and how best to promote them, so that we can involve these alcohol products, too, in an ecological approach to our surroundings and thereby find new trade outlets for our agricultural sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
Together with the Group of the European People’s Party , I had voted in favour of Amendment No 53, which was however rejected, with 181 votes in favour, 264 votes against and 11 abstentions. The report would have gained a lot if Amendment No 53 had instead been approved. The concept of 'reproductive and sexual health and rights' would then have been clearly defined, in terms of the protection of the unborn child, by means of the following wording: 'In the context of this Regulation, abortion, which can never be promoted as a family planning method, cannot be considered as a service which guarantees sexual and reproductive health'. Regrettably, there now instead remains uncertainty as to whether, on the directions of the EU and with the help of the EU’s financial resources, aid organisations, invoking 'reproductive and sexual health care and services', also carry out abortions as a part of the aid they provide, in spite of this being illegal in certain Member States of the EU such as Ireland and Portugal. It also remains unclear as to whether this activity de facto takes place in developing countries, in spite of similar legal protection of the life of the foetus, that is to say in direct violation of the recipient country’s legal view.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I want to talk about the same point of order as Mr Atkins. I do not think it is usual for the discussion preceding a vote to be a discussion of amendments. We discussed the latter in committee. What is more, I was able to obtain these amendments yesterday and I believe that we are called upon to have a general discussion today. We shall have ample opportunity tomorrow to vote on the additional amendments tabled at the last minute by all the groups. I think that this important matter, close to the committee’s heart, ought to be debated today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission’s proposal for a directive concerning the quality of bathing water will be an improvement on the current situation, as has been said here, but there are still problems attached to it. The question remains as to how we take account of the fact that bathing waters and bathing facilities vary from one European region to another. In the Commission proposal a bathing site falls within the scope of this directive when a large number of people go there. It has already been said here that it is quite difficult to say what a large number actually means: a large number where there are a lot of people, or a large number where, for example, there are 20 kilometres of beach per inhabitant and public right of access? How, moreover, do we define a bathing site and ensure that attending to measurements and water quality does not become too bureaucratic? My friend, Torben Lund, here thought it absurd to have a proposal that defines a bathing site according to how many bathers go there, and according to which the authorities must define it as a bathing site. In my view, it is just as absurd for the Commission to take Finland to court because measurements have not been carried out there with respect to some beach that everybody knows to be clean, and where the quality of the water is even known to be excellent, just because the definition of a bathing site has these problems associated with it. I hope that this kind of flexibility is brought to the directive in the proper way, but at the same time I hope that these issues of public health with regard to the citizens of Europe are also taken proper account of in this directive.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my Group has also been involved in submitting this motion to the Commission, simply on the basis that we are creating a Europe that is undergoing integration, but it is not at all clear that our citizens will be able to have a say in this merging Europe and keep pace with the advance of integration. I do not want to say that the political parties are the only, or even necessarily, the most important channel whereby the public can have a say in matters that currently affect society, but they play a part, and the status of the European parties must be defined without delay. Just as my colleagues have said, these parties must be brought out into the light of day. They are, in any case, already active today. They cannot replace the national parties, but cooperation among national parties is no longer necessarily enough. It is important that we agree on fully open and transparent financing when the European parties are defined. It is, for example, very important that accurate information is available concerning their sources of income, and the financing of elections is of particular importance in this respect, since money must not determine success in elections. My Group does not merely intend that we should acquire in this way a funding channel for the European parties, but what is most important is that there will now be the opportunity to define those basic principles on which the European parties can function. We must take the view that they must respect fundamental democratic rights, human rights and the principle of the rule of law when they function. The time perhaps has come to specify that only European parties such as these may enjoy public support. If the legal basis is vague, we agree with the request for the Commission to take an initiative to make it clearer, and the Intergovernmental Conference must also take responsibility for this. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, when it is normal practice to congratulate rapporteurs on their work, it is difficult to find appropriate words to use when something exceptional has been achieved. So I shall say simply that it is a tribute to the work of Mrs Miguélez Ramos that a report that attracted over 400 amendments at the committee stage has come to plenary with only 25 to be considered. Before dealing with the nature of the substantive motion for a resolution, I want to touch briefly on the amendments by my own group. Amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5 look to the international level. Amendment No 3 seeks common definitions and methodology in respect of fisheries subsidies and fishing capacity and effort and the interrelationship between them. Amendments Nos 4 and 5 are designed to improve the monitoring both of the cost-effectiveness of fisheries agreements with third countries and of fishing activities conducted in the context thereof. Amendment No 6 seeks only to soften the wording of recital H because of doubts that the CFP can actually guarantee those working in the sector living conditions comparable to those in other production sectors, although it should certainly assist in this respect. Finally, Amendment No 7 wishes merely to add recreational sea angling to the areas to which, along with deep-sea and coastal fishing and aquaculture, separate attention needs to be given. We hope that these amendments will meet with the approval of the House. More generally, we believe that the motion for a resolution has achieved a commendable balance between the demands of fishing as an economic activity and the need for conservation. In sustaining the principle of relative stability, and the six- to twelve-mile limit, it recognises the fragility of fisheries-dependent communities. In endorsing a move to multiannual and multi-species quotas, it promotes an approach to fisheries management that is better for the industry and the environment alike. It also addresses other issues of environmental concern, such as shark finning and the bycatch of citations. Further, it takes serious note of our responsibilities towards the developing world. Another of the aspects dear to my own heart is the move towards establishing a far greater input into the decision-making process by fishermen, scientists and conservationists. I add, with a touch of pride, that this is an approach pioneered in my own constituency, with the involvement of organisations such as the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, The Shetland Oceans Alliance and the World Wildlife Fund. The number of amendments at committee showed how many different and often conflicting views there can be where fisheries issues are concerned. The final report demonstrates just how well we in this House can manage to reconcile our differences. I hope that, as voted later today, it will remain something of which Parliament as a whole, the Committee on Fisheries in particular, and Mrs Miguélez Ramos, despite her modesty and her own personal reservations, can be justifiably proud.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I welcome this proposal. It is long overdue. Certainly the amendments to it by my colleagues Mr de Roo and Mr Lange are moving in the right direction. Since the first publication of this directive back in 1997 the manufacturers have moved to meet the Commission standards. I understand the desire of my colleague, Mr de Roo, to take the standards further. However, I have to sound a note of caution. Firstly, tyre standards are not the only problem. The nature of the road surface is just as important and in particular circumstances like noise hotspots in urban areas perhaps more important than trying to change the tyre standards. In many cases a better solution is to change the road surface and not the tyre standards. Secondly – and in my opinion of paramount importance – is the need to balance the problem of tyre noise and tyre safety. Whilst we are tonight seeking to adopt new tyre standards to reduce tyre noise we are not making any progress at all on tyre standards for the grip or adhesion of tyres on the road. Despite good and serious proposals being put on the table some considerable time ago by the UK, they have not yet been agreed or seriously considered. Our failure to agree tyre safety standards creates an unacceptable level of uncertainty with regard to this vital question. For that reason I am particularly concerned about the potential effects of Amendments Nos 3 and 4 and their impact upon tyre safety, especially for vehicles such as buses and trucks. In the circumstances I feel bound to say that I personally cannot give my support to Mr de Roo's Amendments Nos 3 and 4. I suggest to him that they are premature and I would ask the Commission to reject them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, enlargement is our way of demonstrating our solidarity with eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus, which will soon be members of the European Union. As regards Cyprus, which the previous speaker mentioned, I should like to say that the faster Turkey understands where Europe stands today, the more it will be able to help, not just in resolving the problems in Cyprus, but with its own European prospects. The universe is not conspiring against it; on the contrary, sometimes Turkey itself undermines its own European prospects. Now, one specific European Union policy which illustrates the solidarity of the richer with the poorer is obviously the policy of the Structural Funds, which apply to both present and future Member States. So, to turn to the report by Mr Turco, and may I offer my congratulations to Mr Turco, what I want to say is that, clearly, the current Member States were slow getting started in 2000 – it was mainly the Member States which were to blame, although I do not entirely absolve the European Commission – and Community initiatives are even slower getting started. As regards the pre-accession instrument, the ISPA, unfortunately this too has been slow getting started, although we must admit that it strikes a balance between measures on transport and measures on the environment. However, what we must bear in mind is that the ISPA is not just a funding instrument, it is a way of familiarising these countries with the European Union's way of thinking. So, as far as funding is concerned, whether we are talking about the Structural Funds or farming, we must demonstrate our support for those who are shortly to become members of the European Union by being generous up to a point; however, they too must do what they can, not just in taking up the funds but in making the best possible use of them.

Political group: PPE-DE