GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I abstained in the final vote for several major reasons and also some minor ones. It was difficult for me to support the resolution because it mixes the worst in with the best. On the other hand, I did not want to vote against a resolution which probably represents the best the European Parliament can do at the moment. The obvious conclusion seems to me that Parliament itself still has a long way to go to meet the profound aspirations of the majority of European Union citizens. Moreover, the rejection of two compromise amendments during the sitting bears witness to the difficulty of finding representative majorities, as does the rejection or acceptance, by the narrowest of margins, of institutional measures of the highest importance. To take just one example, Parliament was only able to maintain a compromise on the composition of the Commission with difficulty, but truth obliges me to state that the compromise incorporates two contradictory ideas. We have passed a resolution actually stating that the number of members of the Commission should be limited, as long as it is not. Is that really a very sensible position for a Parliament to take? Ainardi, Bakopoulos, Eriksson, Figueiredo, Frahm, Koulourianos, Meijer, Herman Schmid, Seppänen and Sjöstedt , – We, Members from different parties in the Group, have not voted in favour of the report concerning the European Parliament proposal for the IGC. We oppose the development of the European Union towards a state with superior powers to those of the Member States in all aspects of policy, as the report in practice advocates. Instead of transforming the EU into a state, we are of the opinion that the Union must be democratised. Democratisation of the European Union must be achieved through a decreasing of the Commission's power, the introduction of openness and transparency to the legislative practices of the Council, and strengthening of the role at EU level of the national parliaments. We further protest against the report's advocacy of the militarisation of the EU. We insist that the EU remain a civil organisation and that the non-aligned countries' special status be respected. We are of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference must reconsider the construction of the EMU, reassessing the currency union's lack of democracy and its right-wing policies. We demand that the stability pact be reconsidered and Article 56 of the Treaty be rewritten in order to bring the ECB under democratic control. We reiterate our condemnation of the failure to submit the EMU project to referendum in all of the Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party also wants to say that we very strongly support the initiatives you have put in place in the personnel area, Mr Kinnock. It is no easy task you have embarked upon, and it is therefore important for Parliament to offer its full support. It has, of course, been a widespread feature of society over the last few years that organisations have been obliged to re-think the way they organise their work in order to maintain competitiveness and exploit the opportunities offered by modern technology and public administration and, in so doing, give the electorate full value for their tax contributions. Moreover, it is precisely the electorate that has a lot of difficulty understanding why the EU’s institutions maintain such a rigid and old-fashioned personnel policy in which promotions are made on the basis of very formal criteria rather than on the basis of effort. There is no grass-roots understanding of why EU employees do not have to meet the demands for fresh thinking, flexibility and adaptation that apply in the rest of society. In that connection, I should like, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, to support the Commission’s proposal for the linear career structure which has been mentioned quite a few times this evening and in which promotions are made on the basis of ability and effort. I should also like to regret the fact that, in a letter to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, the President of the European Parliament in actual fact went against Parliament’s own views on this point, as expressed in the Harbour report. Moreover, I hope that this has not created too much in the way of difficulties for the Commission in the negotiations. It is vital that the Commission’s reforms should involve a personnel policy that rewards commitment, hard work and adaptability, and that is something we must support. Against that background, I shall look forward to the Commission’s compromise proposal for a career structure. I should also like to acknowledge the Commissioner’s pointing out what is creating the problems in Heading 5. I think that remark was rather apposite.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the ban on State aid for what are mostly publicly-owned shipyards, the refusal to write off the debts run up by their previous private owners and the practice of handing them back to the private sector more or less free of charge are the mainstays of the policy exercised by the European Union which, in collusion with our national governments, has caused this strategically important sector to waste away. This sorry state of affairs has been exacerbated by a dumping policy, especially in South Korea. The blow which started with the seventh directive has been fatal for Greece's highly-developed shipbuilding industry. Thousands of jobs have been lost, working and health and safety conditions in the sector have deteriorated and we recently mourned the death of another five workers, sacrificed to capitalist speculation in the shipbuilding sector. Now we have a hypocritical proposal to give aid, the aid which was previously banned, to what are now privately-owned shipyards as their only means of salvation. Yet again we see the European Union's devotion to the interests of big business. The Communist Party of Greece takes the view that the only viable solution is to create a single publicly-owned agency which can withstand international competition and benefit employment and the economy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to say that I was stuck in a lift for 15 minutes, so the lifts really are not working.

Political group: PPE-DE
We regret the fact that the first draft report presented by the rapporteur was rejected in committee, as it had some positive aspects to it, specifically its references to the need to increase public investment and investment in job creation in order to achieve 75% employment. We have therefore voted against the report in its present form, as all the amendments we tabled were rejected. I would like to highlight the following: - the importance of public investment for sustained economic growth based on economic recovery, by stimulating internal demand and concentrating public investment in areas which would have a positive effect on the economy in general, such as building and maintaining infrastructures, urban renewal, vocational training, education and health; - promotion of demand within the Community, through greater public investment and salary increases relating to increased productivity, as a means of achieving greater economic growth, which is essential if we are to achieve our objective of full employment; - the creation of support mechanisms for SME associations as a way of improving the competitiveness of SMEs and their level of organisation, as they can provide support services to association members, such as centralised credit, information and legal support services.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Following the progress made at the Tampere European Council in October 1999 on a European area of freedom, security and justice, and at a time when we are discussing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the report we are debating today is of the utmost importance. It concerns the issue of family reunification. This right is currently only recognised by international legal instruments, specifically the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. At national level, situations are extremely disparate. Family reunification enables the family unit to be protected and makes the integration of third-country nationals into Member States easier. It was therefore crucial to incorporate the law on family reunification into Community legislation. The European Commission’s proposal therefore sets out to establish a law on family reunification for nationals of third countries who are legally resident in a Member State, as long as they fulfil a certain number of financial and procedural conditions. I welcome the work of my fellow Members of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, who have made a considerable effort to combat the extremely limiting and conservative vision of the first rapporteur. They have produced a text that is close to the European Commission’s basic proposal which, in my opinion, is on the whole quite satisfactory. Consequently, those belonging to one of the following categories will benefit from the law on family reunification: - third-country nationals who are legally resident in the territory of a Member State and who have a residence permit, which is valid for at least one year. - refugees, regardless of how long their residence permit is valid, or European Union citizens not exercising their right to free movement. Those entitled to claim family reunification are: - the spouse or non-married partner of the applicant (including same-sex partners); although it should be noted that the provision covering non-married partners only applies in Member States where the position of non-married couples is comparable to that of married couples; - the children of the couple, whether they are married or not, and whether they are born within marriage, out of wedlock or are from a previous marriage; - the children of one of the spouses or partners are covered, on condition that the latter have actual custody and responsibility; - relatives in the ascending line, when these people are in the applicant’s care as well as children of full age who are also dependants.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as we are all aware, smoking tobacco has many serious effects on public health. It is important to note that these do not just affect smokers themselves, but also those who spend time in smoky environments, those with allergies as well as many others. Smoking also leads to substantially increased health care costs in many countries. In our capacity as politicians, our task is to warn of the risks of smoking, to reduce the harmfulness of tobacco products and to attempt to get rid of misleading marketing. I consider that the conciliation we have achieved with the Council of Ministers is an obvious step in the right direction in this area. In the Group, we are, for example, particularly satisfied with the requirements for a lower tar content, the limit values for nicotine and carbon monoxide, clearer warnings and the requirement for companies to list additives. We see the results in these areas as major progress. In two areas, we would have liked measures to have been taken more quickly, but we feel that we are at least on the right track. This applies to the ban on misleading brand names, for which no date has been set for implementation, something which we would have liked to have seen. This will have to be a future task. There is at least one commitment in this direction for the future. We would also like there to have been faster progress regarding export bans on tobacco products that are not approved under EU rules. It is rather embarrassing that it is all right to export what we consider to be dangerous to health in our own countries. We should have preferred to have seen these products banned simultaneously in the EU and for export, but at least a ban has been set for the year 2007. Earlier in this conciliation, Swedish snuff was discussed, and we believe that a good solution has been arrived at in this area too. It means that the exemption under which Sweden may keep its traditional snuff will be retained without the market in other EU countries being opened up. We believe that other EU countries have the right to refuse this product if they wish to forgo it, which no doubt a number of them will. Overall, we are very satisfied with the result of the conciliation and feel that the rapporteur has done a good job. If we were to be slightly critical, we could say that the EU has problems of credibility when it comes to its tobacco policy as a whole. Possibly EUR 1 billion per year is still spent on subsidies for tobacco cultivation. If we are to make our work on combating the harmful effects of tobacco smoking more credible, it is perhaps time to start phasing out these subsidies.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the first budget of this new financial framework confirms and reinforces the grave apprehensions we had during the debates on Agenda 2000 and on the interinstitutional agreement that goes with it. Indeed, the most striking point about this budget is its obvious lack of appropriations with which to confront specific objectives, given that it is in Category 4 on external action and cooperation that this shortfall is most evident. On this matter, I would like to express not only my strong disagreement with the indiscriminate horizontal cuts that the Council is proposing in this Category, but also to state my general agreement with the strategy that the rapporteur is proposing to us. I also agree with the fact that in essence, it is aiming for a revision of the Financial Perspective so that they will respond to new priorities without previous objectives being affected as a result. Within the scope of this strategy, we are pleased to note that Timor is one of this budget’s priorities, and we particularly welcome the fact that the rapporteur has accepted the insertion of a new heading in order to deal with the reconstruction of that region, which is moreover what we on the Committee on Development and Cooperation had proposed and approved. This is, moreover, the only way in which we can respond to the new situation in Timor, whilst at the same time respecting the legal basis for intervening in the right way. The proposal of EUR 30 million in payment appropriations, however, seems insufficient to us. This is why we want to see this merely as the starting point for a final sum which will be established in the near future and in the context of the Conference of Donors, which is in progress and in which the European Union is participating. By the same token, we would only accept the insertion of this new heading for Timor in a multiannual perspective to be considered within an international framework. One final, very specific point, which is nevertheless of great importance: it is essential to ensure – if this has not already been done – that under heading B7-6000, concerning non-governmental organisations, there is a reference to the Liaison Committee in the respective commentary. Indeed it would be absurd if this did not happen.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, what is the comparative of ridiculous? A parliamentary debate at the witching hour, just before the witching hour. I apologise for being late, as were other fellow Members, but I do have an explanation. We look around and think, hardly anyone is here and the few that are here, who were here before and have already spoken, evaporate like ghosts which materialise somewhere else shortly afterwards and then disappear again. If this were merely a ghost debate, it would not much matter. But we are taking about taxes, transparency, democracy, the substance of a modern economy and mobility. Luckily we have a Harry Potter among us, played tonight by Rolf Linkohr, who is doing his best to ensure that we make some sort of progress here and who has a watchful, unwavering eye for fundamental principles of which many of us are simply no longer aware, fundamental principles for our present society. The fact that only 11 Members are still here says much about both the strength and the powerlessness of this Parliament. Nonetheless, the debate is a central debate, when you think what the problems are, and there are three problems, I think. First, there is the problem of democracy, social justice and ecology in Europe. Even if we manage to achieve the breakthroughs which we need in the area of democracy and maintain the tendency towards an equitable mix in the social fabric, the huge ecological question still remains. And this is the subject of this report. One point in this report demands our attention because it is, I think, a really important point. I refer to Amendment No 6 which, if it gets through plenary – and I hope it does – will change a general proposal to the Council into a clear demand to push ahead, at long last, with tax harmonisation. Tax harmonisation, especially in the energy sector, is an absolute priority if our citizens are to understand that we have converged not just socially but democratically too. We must put a stop to imbalances whereby a truck driver from Austria, for example, is exposed to totally different conditions of competition than another driver a few kilometres down the road in Germany or France. This is where we call on the Commission and, more importantly, the Council, to do something. I hope that we will make some headway here via this energy report. Without transparency there can be no democracy, not even in Europe. That is why I am ardently in favour not just of accepting the report but also of pushing ahead with tax harmonisation.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, you are not the only one who is angry. When I see how this event is destroying the livelihoods of so many people and of a whole region, we are all angry. On behalf of my group I can tell you that our hearts are with them all, and I believe that we must offer them help through all the channels we have. Here in Parliament we must do what a parliament must do, however, which is to make rules and reinforce existing rules. The first thing I would like to ask – and I am also addressing this request to my good friend Mr Bertel Haarder – is that we apply the existing rules and that we take Erika I and II in hand. There is still a document being debated in the Council, Mr Haarder, and I hope that you will do something about this. We must also tighten up a number of things that are contained in Erika I and II; I am thinking in particular of ports of refuge and safe anchorages. In order to prevent major catastrophes, we must make this system compulsory, so that ships that get into difficulties can get help there and are not turned away. We must draw up a rule for this. The Commission is supposed to be carrying out a study. We must have this. We must also have a compensation rule for ports or places of refuge that take in ships. We now have a ship lying at a depth of 3 500 metres with 50 000 tonnes of oil still on board, and this ship will be causing problems for years. We must avoid this kind of thing in future. Secondly, I would like to comment on port state control, as mentioned by Mr Simpson. Let us tighten this up for hazardous ships. It is absolutely no use checking 25% of ships in good condition; you must focus the controls on hazardous ships and old ships. We must make sure that ships passing through sensitive shipping zones are better controlled. We ask that you enter into negotiations with third countries, including with Russia, with a view to possibly signing bilateral agreements in this regard. It is time to put an end to the quarrels between the Council, the IMO and the Commission. The Commission must negotiate and must be given the opportunity to talk about this; then we will have much stricter rules. International legislation – and this is clearly stated in the resolution we all agree on – cannot be a reason to destroy the environment and people’s lives. The one must not take priority over the other. Finally, with regard to the debate on procedures; together with the Commission and the Council, we must act fast and get rules down on paper. We are therefore not in favour of a committee of enquiry, as this would take too long.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the international agreement on civil and political rights is very clear regarding relationships between adults. Relationships may be of whatever kind they deem appropriate. We are therefore distressed that fifteen homosexuals have received three-year prison sentences in Egypt. Another 29 individuals were effectively cleared, however. In addition, under the provisions of the state of emergency, many people have been arrested recently in connection with anti-war demonstrations. Kostas Kastanias, the Greek citizen, is still in poor health. I remember the Spanish Presidency called for him at least to be transferred to Greece. There is one piece of good news, however. This is the decision by the Egyptian Appeal Court to annul the judgment on Saad Eddin Ibrahim and exonerate him. We had already referred to this individual in the House. He is a human rights defender. Mr President, in view of the Association Agreement with Egypt, I believe the European Commission and the European Union should bring pressure to bear to ensure there is no repetition of such incidents.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, listening to the main rapporteur, Mr Costa Neves, you could be forgiven for thinking that this year's budget procedure chiefly consisted of considering the agriculture budget. I am indeed grateful to him for emphasising the agricultural side, but in concrete terms this would mean – and this is something we welcome – that the 2002 budget would be taking the first steps towards the required reform of EU agricultural policy. However, these steps would be somewhat less incisive because the 2002 budget will probably be very much marked by the need to overcome the BSE and foot-and-mouth crises. On behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I would therefore suggest that we take the issues before us particularly seriously, and that we therefore ensure that provision is made for the possibility of bringing together appropriations – including those in the area of compulsory expenditure – in the form of a fund for 'animal diseases and market emergencies'. This would guarantee that we really have sufficient funds to deal with the crisis, which has assumed catastrophic proportions, in conjunction with the Member States. On no account will we accept an attempt to tackle problems by means of across-the-board cuts, as was discussed for the previous budget. We trust that there will not be a request of this kind from the Commission when the preliminary draft budget for 2002 is submitted. In the context of export refunds and of a new EU agricultural authority, which is now on the cards, we should also try to continue the trend of further reducing expenditure in respect of exports, where it is still very high. This would not only make it easier for us to energetically defend our position at WTO level, but would also increase our overall flexibility as regards agriculture and rural development. In other words, despite all the problems that the BSE and foot-and-mouth crises are currently creating for us, we would like to see Commission's preliminary draft budget containing the first positive steps towards the much-needed reform of EU agricultural policy.

Political group: PSE