GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as a supporter of enlargement to the whole of Europe, I was deeply disappointed by the statement from President Prodi which gave the green light for eventual Turkish and Balkan countries' membership but excluded Ukraine permanently. This position in my view contravenes Article 49 of the Treaty, of which he is the guardian, unless of course he regards Ukraine as not being a European country. I hope that the new Commissioners will be more positive in their attitude towards Ukraine's aspirations. I welcome in particular today Mr Kyprianou's nomination as the Commissioner from Cyprus, a Commonwealth country. I call upon the new Commission to cease to vilify the Greek Cypriot people post-referendum. I too am in favour of ending the isolation of the Turkish-occupied northern community, but, before this happens, surely the handing over of EU aid money – and I call upon Mr Talat in particular – is inappropriate for as long as they are offering sanctuary to wanted fugitives from justice, particularly from the United Kingdom. Can the Commission look into this matter urgently?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when we consider terrorism, we find that opinions develop fast. This is true in this report too. In the past, we actually assumed that terrorism was mainly a problem that affected unstable countries rather than apparently peaceful states. We have had to review our opinions completely, because we now know that terrorism also flourishes in peaceful countries such as mine, the Netherlands – albeit not in a violent manner; terrorists are careful about this. Instead, as the Commissioner has already stated, they use the free and open society with its facilities to quietly prepare terrorist acts which they commit elsewhere. This is why the European Union and also its very peaceful Member States will need to be very much on the alert so as to fight terrorism in their own countries too. Moreover, not all categories of citizens in the Member States will be faced with a threat of the rule of law. Sometimes it is only certain categories of citizens who are targets for extortion in our countries by fellow nationals collecting money for terrorist acts in places like northern Africa. There are certain categories of citizens in the Netherlands and in other Member States who are victims of such extortion, and we must fight for people in that position, so that the rule of law is no longer under threat for them. The causes of terrorism are often sought in poverty. I do not actually believe that this is so. It is a well-known fact that revolutions are not staged by the extremely poor; those involved are often people of a different type. This is also the case here. Those responsible for the serious attacks were well-educated, well-to-do people who were perfectly able to fit into any developed society, including Western society, and could even have achieved high status there. The problem is often that people's most vulnerable part, their deepest convictions, are taken advantage of and that the evil seed of violent terrorism is sown in the very growth cell of the social organism. There is always a handful of people who are susceptible to this. It is not necessarily down to fundamentalism; there is a huge number of peace-loving fundamentalists. A considerable leap is required to resort to violence. We were all shocked by the attacks on Bali. We should, in my view, make every effort to ensure that the Indonesian Government receives maximum support so that the state of Indonesia can be sufficiently strong to prevent and fight terrorism internally as much as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to raise a point of order. I heard Commissioner Barnier say that he is intending to leave, that he needs to go early because he has other commitments. Can I just say that I was minister in my own country for five years but not a single minister in our parliament would have considered walking out on a debate where spokespersons were still waiting to speak. Mrs de Palacio, who is responsible for relations with Parliament, has also promised – at least in our Group – that Commissioners will remain present in all debates from now on. The last speakers are just as important as the first ones. They may even have more voters behind them than the first ones. I urge Mr Barnier to respect Parliament and to stay. Otherwise I would ask you to write to Mr Prodi to observe the agreements with Mrs de Palacio.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, complete or partial unemployment is a tragedy in human terms for millions of families. It is a social catastrophe even in those European countries that claim to have the fewest unemployed people, and here we have the Cologne European Council and the European Commission, which are both content to gorge themselves on words as they talk about the European Employment pact. The measures that are envisaged though are ridiculous given the extent of the problem. The worst thing is that they are cynically using unemployment as an excuse to give more money to employers. The extra EUR 500 million that the European Central Bank is being asked to release on the pretext of stimulating job creation, as well as the EUR 1 billion for hi-tech SMEs are officially supposed to be used for investment. Now I would like to take one recent example, amongst so many of those big companies who make their workers redundant at a time when they are experiencing increased profits. The ABB Alston Power Trust is preparing to shed a large number of jobs in several countries within the Union, in England, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden, not to mention other countries in Europe or across the world. Why then does the Commission not use its authority to oppose these kinds of job cuts? It is deciding on a huge number of directives which have the force of law in the areas affecting competition. I shall stop now. How can we understand the Commission’s refusal to react to this attitude of big companies, which is irresponsible in human and social terms, unless the explanation is that it serves the interests of these big companies and that it does nothing for the unemployed apart from offering words of consolation?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, it falls to me to be the one who cries wolf on this occasion. I do not normally take a position in this House which is based purely on national considerations but it seems to me that we are attempting to put in place a regulation which is inflexible and does not take into account the position of the market in Ireland. The proposal that we have will oblige Eirecom, a private limited company, a former state monopoly, to open up its local loop to alternative providers and will not oblige alternative providers already in the market place such as cable TV, satellite and wireless local loop operators to do the same. They are excluded from the scope of this regulation. Cable TV companies in Ireland already possess the network and are already gearing up their network to provide telephony, Internet and other interactive services. In many cases they operate large and exclusive franchise areas. In the case of Ireland, penetration rates by these companies in the larger cities and towns is of the order of 90%, far exceeding those of Eirecom PLC. It is impossible to understand and entirely unacceptable that the proposal does not also encompass these TV cable companies. In addition, fixed network operators such as Eirecom will find it impossible to compete with these companies which are providing bundled services to customers, which often include Internet access and free local calls as part of their standard bundle of service offerings. Clearly where an alternative competing network coexists with a copper network, either all should be unbundled or none. This will be consistent with the stated justification for unbundling put forward by the Commission. The regulation on unbundled access to local loop is by its very nature inherently flawed. I do believe that worst law is in most cases bad law, and this is the case in relation to this regulation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the more we look into the subject of traditional herbal medicines the more I am convinced that there is urgent need for action. Like millions of other EU citizens, I am a user of herbal medicinal products. I want a guarantee that when I go into my local health food shop the echinacea or ginseng I buy is of a high quality and standard. Sadly, in the UK at the moment you cannot guarantee that this will be the case. In front of me I have four certificates of analysis and four different types of echinacea products. The first has on its label echinacea root. However, the others simply are not good enough. One failed to comply because of excessive amounts of acid insoluble ash in the product. Another was apparently free of echinacea root altogether, and the last had not been solely manufactured from echinacea root powder as claimed on the label. This means that the next time I go and buy my echinacea, I have a 25% chance of actually purchasing what I want. This lottery has to end. These inferior products on the market are cheating consumers and bringing herbal medicines into disrepute. However, we also require a flexible approach, especially on herbal nutrient combinations, traditional herbal medicines from outside the EU and non-herbal traditional medicines. Herbal nutrient combinations for products are not classified as medicines. Currently they may normally be legally sold as foods and that position would not change. Where these combination products are classified as medicines, currently they are not covered by the present UK regime for unlicensed herbal medicines and therefore require a marketing authorisation. The EU proposal would offer greater flexibility than what is offered at the moment in the UK because the directive would permit the inclusion of nutrients which were non-active. Traditional medicines from outside the EU, such as Chinese medicines, will be able to satisfy the 50 year requirement. However, I agree with those in the herbal sector who would like greater flexibility in taking account of evidence from outside the EU. The key point is that the quality and relevance of evidence of traditional use is more important than geographical origin. This directive deserves to be considered in the light of all the facts, in the interest of public health, consumer confidence and expanded choice on the market.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the day after the creation of the EMPA, the European Union has, as everyone has said, a duty to become involved in peace building within the logic of the Barcelona process. The Union bears a historic and political responsibility, and it can no longer content itself only with issuing condemnations when the region is ablaze or weeping when terrorism strikes. Now, the United States tells us that it has a plan for the Middle East. How, though, can we talk in terms of plans when we know that Syria has a presence in Lebanon, when the occupation in Iraq is ongoing and when a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has still not been found? This plan is, indeed, disputed and disputable. It is disputed because the United States has not bothered to discuss it with the countries concerned. This clearly reveals America’s mistrust and their unilateral practices, just as the pre-emptive war in Iraq did. It also reflects the geopolitical ignorance of the United States and the generalisations it makes by including Maghreb in the Middle East, and Pakistan and Afghanistan among the Arab countries. Finally, what does this plan advocate? The fight against terrorism? Yes, but with the installation of American bases in the region. Has not this been the case since 1990-1991? Resolution of the conflict? Yes, but to be credible, it would be necessary to fight all forms of terrorism, including the state terrorism conducted by Israel, which is doggedly trying to exterminate the Palestinian people, yet with total impunity. Lastly, democratic reforms? Certainly, yes, they are inevitable and essential, because the people are today suffering an economic, political and democratic deficit. These reforms are needed, but so is economic development. Finally, and in conclusion, only by reducing the gap between the ruling classes and the people will these reforms be possible. Civil society must be involved. It is for this reason that we in Europe must support the forces of progress or internal forces for peace and strengthen dialogue in order to dispel fears, to finally put an end to this violence and to let our common values govern us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, taxes and tolls are obviously sensitive matters, and I can confirm this specifically on behalf of Austria where we are always having this discussion and where, of course, good traffic solutions are constantly being sought. The Commission has already submitted an excellent Green Paper concerning fair prices on the roads, and an important principle of this Green Paper is that there should be no cross-subsidising of road hauliers and that, above all, the money collected from particular roads should be used to solve the problems on these same roads. The Commission has also quite clearly ascertained that the greatest problem on the roads at present is accidents. Safe and well constructed roads are an important and basic prerequisite for preventing accidents. At present in Europe, we have approximately 50 000 deaths on the road each year. Very many people die not least because of poor and badly signposted roads with poor visibility on which people drive with a bad mental attitude, and it costs our social systems a very great deal of money to deal with the resulting damage to people’s well-being. Precautionary measures are therefore required in this area. We should see to it that people are safe on the roads and, in the interests of the environment in particular, we must ensure that congestion is prevented. Not only is a lot of time lost and high costs incurred through congestion, but it is quite a major problem for the environment in particular, and I therefore believe that, if the British government is actually investing money in solving the problems, then we all have something to gain, particularly all European citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
We wish to emphasis our belief that the European Union should not fund European parties.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, to follow on seamlessly, may I thank you, Constanze Krehl, for finally being so courageous and for saying these things so clearly. Throughout Europe, this summit has been a gigantic disappointment. Nor can there really be any beating about the bush as the Presidency has just done. In fact, the EU has failed downright and has not used the possibilities open to it. Why are we again accepting a brutal war by Russia against its own people? Why do we simply pass on to the existing agenda? That is really not what meetings at the highest level are there for. They are not there for the purpose of exchanging civilities. They are there for calling a spade a spade. I must say that the report by the Finnish Presidency is a mockery of the facts, however they are described. The truth is that villagers are being bombarded and refugees surrounded, and these are startling infringements of international laws. This is not just an internal matter for Russia that can simply be brushed aside. We have the partnership and cooperation agreement, we have the human rights clauses and, therefore, we have the opportunity to threaten economic sanctions and press for the bombardments to cease. Without this, no international aid can arrive there, Mr Patten; that is no doubt clear. I therefore expect the Presidency and the Commission to get together now and to develop a strategy in the framework of the Joint Foreign and Security Policy which threatens the use of these economic tools and compels Russia to end this war.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, surely you agree that these are not explanations of vote, but simply a continuation of the debate. I still do not know how Mr Berthu voted, not that I am interested, but this is not an explanation of vote, this is just a continuation of the debate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when an accident occurs at sea it has far-reaching and almost irreparable consequences for the immediate environment as a whole. The maritime environment is also being contaminated by practices indifferent to the law and environmental welfare, such as emptying bilge water into the open sea. Polluters of the environment must be made accountable for what they do. Strengthening the penal framework will hopefully act as an adequate deterrent to those who transport cargo which is dangerous for the environment in vessels in poor condition or unsuited to the purpose, or otherwise contaminate the environment though negligence or indifference. For example, in the Baltic Sea, which is a very fragile and shallow internal sea surrounded by quite a number of countries, enormous risks are taken which could prove to be environmentally disastrous. Oil is transported in single-hull vessels in difficult conditions in the winter when there is pressure from ice. There also have to be more inspections and routine monitoring to bring illegal pollution under control. I hope that after the directives to improve safety at sea enter into force at EU level, all parties responsible for maritime transport will consider carefully how consignments can be handled using appropriate equipment and in a way that is as environmentally safe as possible. Apathy and the taking of unnecessary risks must be minimised. I am glad that EU legislation is to be strengthened and harmonised with regard to this issue. I thank the Commission and the rapporteurs for the work they have done, and I hope that the reformed, stricter legislation will soon be brought into effect.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what remains to be said on the subject of food safety and the precautions to be taken in order to avoid further instances of contamination or further food crises? Mrs Paulsen’s report grasps the extremely serious nature of the situation but does not go far enough in view of the stakes involved. The outrages – one no longer dares to speak of mere infringements or minor abuses – in the industrial agro-food processing chain in the context of liberalism, competition and the frenzied thirst for profits, have actually proved lethal, even criminal, it must be said. Deliberate violations of health, criminal and even moral codes by doctoring the laws of nature and tampering with animal species and animal physiology are conducted without being subject to any surveillance or appropriate regulations or any justified penalties. Yet we consumers are the last stage in the food chain, and hence the final recipients of the abuses and counterfeits in the food industry. Should we be surprised, then, to find ourselves the victims of these, and even, unfortunately, to yield to them? It is irresponsible and fraudulent to disregard the infinite complexity of the workings and relationships within the industrial agro-food chain in order to admit that it is no longer possible to monitor and separate out exactly what is going on in order to apply appropriate penalties. Every link in the chain must be responsible for what it produces and for its precisely identifiable role. The safety bolt guaranteeing this discipline lies in the Commission’s determination to ensure that consumers are provided with consistent quality, at all levels, in the products available on the market. So, in refusing to accept the inclusion of genetically modified foodstuffs as undesirable products, the European Parliament has taken the responsibility of being completely out of step with the public and the people that elected its Members, as consumers are proving to be more and more reluctant on the matter of GMOs, going so far as to reject them outright when they do have the opportunity to identify them in food. Nor should we be surprised if the agro-food industry leaps headlong into this breach and banks totally on animal feedingstuffs to consume their GMOs. The ball is now in the Commission’s court. It must make good its omissions by proposing and implementing urgent measures in response to the perfectly justified concerns of consumers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are two things I want to say. We spent a great deal of time yesterday considering the Boogerd-Quaak report on the media, which has been a matter of some controversy. I would like to say that we regard the refusal by the President of Parliament to permit the amendments as lacking any legal justification and we are therefore contesting his decision. We will also be considering legal action to test whether the rights of Members of this House can be set aside by sweeping aside all the amendments, as was done in this instance. It is because we regard this as a very serious course of action that our group will not be taking part in today’s vote on the Boogerd-Quaak report on the media, thereby recording our protest and our inability to accept this decision. There is a second matter that I would like to address, and it has to do with what Mr Barón Crespo said in the plenary yesterday. The first question that has to be dealt with has to do with the background to Mr Barón Crespo’s assertion that documents had disappeared from the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, for, if that is indeed the case, then it follows that it could affect all the procedural issues connected with the Boogerd-Quaak report. I would, however, ask Mr Barón Crespo to withdraw the allegations he made in the plenary yesterday, which are, unfortunately, not recorded in the Minutes. Yesterday, I heard the remarks that Mr Barón Crespo addressed to Mr Tajani, and they are recorded on the House’s official tapes, but not in the Minutes. Yesterday, Mr Barón Crespo said to Mr Tajani, for whom we all have high regard: ‘Calla, desgraciado’, which, when translated, means ‘shut up, you wretch!’ I think it unworthy for one Member of this House to describe another in these terms, and I ask Mr Barón Crespo to withdraw this remark. Something else was said, and I regret that. I had never thought I would have to say something like this in this House. There is, though, something that binds us together no matter what disputes we may have with each other, and that is our mutual respect. That is something that our group, at any rate, stands for, and such language should not be used to anyone. I will add that Mr Barón Crespo also said something that I will read out, which was taken down for me from the tape. I am reading it in Spanish, a language that I, unfortunately, do not speak, and so I apologise if I am not getting it quite right: ‘pediría a los jabalíes que andan sueltos por ahí que tengan tranquilidad.’ Translated, that means: ‘I would ask the wild boar running loose in this Chamber to calm themselves!’ Such, ladies and gentlemen, is not the language that should be used here in the European Parliament, and I ask Mr Barón Crespo to put right the remarks he made yesterday. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE