GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as has already been said, by just five votes Parliament has provided the news reports with one of the most disappointing and shameful pages on our work in this forum: a report entitled ‘on the human rights situation in the European Union’ and which, on the contrary, has violated, or is violating, many of the rights which most affect citizens. Let us consider one of many: the institution of the family, which is, to say the least, distorted by this report; a family model which proposes the free union between men or women of the same sex and liberalised single-parent or, precisely, homosexual, adoption laws. And furthermore, a country is put forward as a model – the Netherlands to be exact – which, in addition to these things, has official euthanasia and liberalised drug policies. Well, if this is the social model which is now coming out of Parliament, I dissociate myself from it and – here lies the weak spot – the majority of Member States dissociate themselves from it too: only two or three indirectly follow the Dutch model. There will now be an institutional deadlock, because neither the Commission nor the Council – they have already announced this – are willing to accept this trend. We have missed an opportunity to be clearer and more coherent.

Political group: PPE-DE
-0268/2004) by Terence Wynn, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament on 'Building our common future – policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013' (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0272/2004) by Konstantinos Hatzidakis, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the Third report on economic and social cohesion (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0269/2004) by Salvador Garriga Polledo, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the 2005 budget: the Commission's annual policy strategy (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0236/2004) by Wilfried Kuckelkorn, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the 2005 budget: Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure Before the vote:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should simply like to express my concern at the resounding vote given by this House in favour of Turkey’s progress towards accession. Turkey is a great and respectable country, but it is not a European one. Turkey’s accession would initiate a process that would, little by little, gradually lead to an overall dilution of the EU as a whole. It would deprive the EU of a genuine ability to make decisions and take action in the future. I appreciate that the House has voted in this way as part of the Helsinki decision taken by the Heads of State or Government in 1999. This was, however, a rash decision that was taken without proper debate or consultation and we are now reaping its disastrous consequences. I am also astonished – and I will finish on this point – to see some people today opposing the follow-up of the process, even though yesterday, they approved the initiative – involving Mr Chirac and Mr Jospin with particular regard to my own country – which was at the root of the Helsinki decision in 1999.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to speak against the proposal, because it seems to me that Mrs Theato's reasoning is full of contradictions. You see, on the one hand she said that she wanted the report to be referred back to committee, because she wanted to grant discharge to the Council soon. But on the other hand it is well known in this House that in her very group there are those who have serious reservations about doing this at all. At the same time, Mrs Morgan has made a proposal that would take away a lot of the pressure and difficulties associated with this particular issue and would constitute an elegant solution to this problem. Incidentally, I would point out that we also need to make decisions on a whole series of other institutions, and I do not think that, on the basis of this contradictory reasoning, we should throw away an opportunity to resolve this problem elegantly. We would be quite happy to address the questions raised by Mrs Theato next year. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, let us no longer use the word enlargement, but rather talk about accession, or even better, the reunification of Europe. The candidate states have spared no effort to meet the requirements. It is clear, though, that some countries have made more headway than others. This is why it is impossible to set a general date of accession; each country is welcome as soon as it has met the Copenhagen criteria, either before or after the European elections. It is remarkable that the national documents are often far more upbeat than the Brok report. We do not do the candidate countries any favours by scaling down the requirements or making out that the situation is better than it is. A great deal still needs to be done. This includes issues such as democracy, the constitutional state, decentralisation, the fight against corruption, EU regulations, industrial changes, consumer protection, environmental measures and agricultural reform. The EU must pull out all the stops in order to support the candidates in these areas and not raise any new barriers, of course. And all parties must aim for the shortest possible transitional periods, if any at all. It is better to have a sound accession at a slightly later date than a premature one which proves inadequate. I have noted a dangerous trend. Frustration in the candidate countries is mounting because they feel the accession process is taking far too long. And at the same time, there is growing resistance to accession among the population within the Member States. And even the European politicians have insufficient insight into the negotiating process. If this situation does not change, the whole reunification will be up in the air. I would therefore call on the government leaders to assume their responsibility and to stop this trend in its tracks. They must enter into a dialogue with their own people, and thereby convince them of the huge importance of peace, stability and prosperity across the entire continent, and of the historic importance of the reunification of Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really would like, as draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, to thank the rapporteur most warmly for the work he has done. The Commission proposal is one that I am able to welcome in its entirety, as it aims to improve the combating of fraud in the area of agriculture. For there is one thing that must be clear to all of us, and that is that fraud harms farmers themselves. The EAGGF guarantee is a means of financing, for example, export refunds, interventions by the various market organisations or the co-financing of supporting and other measures for the development of rural areas outside the Objective 1 regions. As the Commissioner has already pointed out, Regulation 4045/89 deals with retrospective checking of the business records of undertakings in receipt of agricultural aid from the Community budget for EAGGF guarantees. Thus, this Regulation is the core anti-fraud measure in the agricultural sphere. I welcome the Commission's presentation of proposals for adapting this instrument and bringing it up to date. Controls are important, especially in agriculture, which is a sensitive area, because the whole industry would suffer without them. The selection criteria for the undertakings to be audited were last amended in 1994, but have not been further adapted since then. To take an example, the annual rate of inflation has to be taken into account. Use of risk analysis techniques is to be even further improved. Aid payments already received, which are fixed as the threshold at which scrutiny starts, are to be raised, and administrative assistance has to be simplified. This makes me very thankful that this will take place across all the Member States, as this will enable us to reduce the number of audits by up to 25%, which must in no way be taken as a reduction in their quality, but a more targeted selection of undertakings to be audited, and one that relates more to the risks involved. Fraud needs to be combated in a hard-hitting and focussed way. In future, therefore, electronic data and documents will be subjected to scrutiny, yielding data on production and on the type of produce. Direct payments to the producer will continue to be excluded from scrutiny, as will those payments covered by the integrated administration and control system. I would like to conclude with particular reference to the real importance of taking into account the need to create special framework conditions, based on a multi-annual approach, for this in controls and measures or rural development projects.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I tabled the question before the Commission adopted its proposal on the trans-European networks, but it was motivated by a very timely proposal by the Italian Presidency, which appears to be producing results, both in the Council's approval of its proposal, and also the incorporation of transport to the island of Sicily, which is a recognition of the special nature of island regions. The President-in-Office of the Council has stressed the special nature of the outermost regions, based on Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, but, on seeing the projects approved by the Commission, I note that there is only one which could involve the outermost regions, and that is the one relating to sea motorways. They could perhaps also be included in the project on telecommunications networks, but what is striking about this report is that it does not contain the least reference to this type of region, and the European Union's experience demonstrates that, if there is no specific reference in these projects to the outermost regions, it is probable that the strengthening of continental communications networks will in no way benefit these regions. I would therefore call on the Presidency of the Council, in accordance with the comments it has itself made, to ensure that the Council takes account of their special situation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am convinced that any type of embargo apart from an arms embargo is a violation of human rights and ineffective in combating authoritarian regimes. My visit to Iraq made me even more intolerant of the fact that, in the name of the defence of democracy and the rights of the Iraqi people, oppressed by Saddam Hussein, we are killing a people and destroying a country. This is intellectual genocide. The head of the World Aid Program has said so. We have seen the victims in the hospitals: children with their mothers who look at you with staring eyes and haunt your sleep; doctors who watch the agony, powerless to do anything. The Oil for Food programme stipulates that any imported goods must be screened by the exemption committee; million dollar contracts are delayed for years for fear that the goods may have a dual use: medicines, spare parts, medical equipment and graphite-tipped pencils are all prevented from entering the country. There are no airlines offering flights to Baghdad, although there are no UN resolutions banning such flights either, because the USA and the United Kingdom have declared a no-fly zone. I call upon Europe to stop vacillating and suspend the embargo, with the exception of the arms embargo, unilaterally, reinstating civilian aircraft flights. We must trust the Iraqi people to bring about democracy in Iraq! One young girl from the Iraqi opposition, Rabye, said to me, while the bombs were falling on her village, 'You are even destroying our dream of building our own democracy ourselves'.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, on behalf of the Pensioners’ Party, which is part of the Group of the European People’s Party, I voted for the Sterckx report on the regulation of the European airline industry. I particularly welcome the recommendation in this report that national government delegations should be seconded to the European Union structures which deal with incentives for technical research. I would also like to use these few, precious seconds allotted to me to point out that it would have been appropriate for these measures governing transport and, in particular, air transport in Europe, to make provision for young and elderly people who enjoy travelling, and that it would have been appropriate to provide flight discounts for them – but not necessarily during peak hours or on peak days – thereby promoting cultural exchanges among both young and elderly people from different States of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘yes’ to the directive and ‘yes’ to the rapporteur’s strategy, for it is thanks to that consistent approach that I too have withdrawn my amendment. The electronic market is a prime market in terms of growth, employment and future prospects, and not just in Europe. We must therefore exploit all its opportunities and it is important that this regulation on electronic commerce has removed the barriers created by divergent legislative provisions and the ensuing legal uncertainty. The rapporteur analyses the common position in the spirit of constructive criticism. Let me pick up on two points of detail that are very close to my heart and where I would have liked to see the common position worded more clearly. First, there is the question of the sale of medicines and, secondly, the protection of books as a cultural asset in connection with the existing fixed book price agreements. On the first point, let me say briefly that in my country, Austria, we have banned the sale of medicines by mail order. So there is some concern that firms established in Member States where this is allowed could encourage Austrian patients to order and buy medicines through the Internet. In view of the health risks alone, I once again ask for extra clarification in the common position, so as to ensure that advertising activities and agreements with a view to the mail order of medicines are excluded from the area coordinated by the directive. My second point concerns cultural assets. Article 1(6) is the only article in the directive that refers, and then only in very general terms, to the cultural area, to the protection and promotion of cultural diversity. I think that is not good enough. So I would ask for it to be made clear that the directive does not apply to the fixed book price schemes introduced via legislation or arrangement in some Member States. Furthermore, operators established in Member States other than the countries concerned should not be allowed to undermine these schemes when selling to an end consumer. As far as I am concerned, the question of e-commerce in medicines and the protection of cultural diversity will be an important issue in the review scheduled in three years’ time, which I welcome. I ask the Commission to devote special attention to these two points.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, opportunity has been taken of the European Year of People with Disabilities to express numerous proposals and to formulate interesting ideas. Generally speaking, we have a wealth of material before us which, however, needs to be mastered if we want to have an integrated policy on people with disabilities. This is the most difficult point of the entire strategy. If we want to be efficient, we need to focus our policy on three objectives. First, we need to persuade the constitution writers that it is high time we moved on to a new generation of rights which are recognised in the countries' constitutions as an integral part of fundamental rights, because only if people with disabilities are recognised as having special rights will they too be able to enjoy the fundamental rights which are generally recognised for all citizens. Secondly, we need to persuade finance ministers to recognise that expenditure on people with disabilities should be seen not as consumer spending, but as an investment in human potential and, consequently, as productive expenditure. This will pave the way for taking the measures needed to stop the exclusion of these people. Finally, but equally importantly, we need to introduce a strategy to convince the rest of the population that the problems of people with disabilities relate not to a specific category, but to society as a whole, if we want to have a society with cohesion and superior living standards. In other words, the indifference or even, on numerous occasions, the negative attitude of our fellow citizens towards the special characteristics of these people needs to be overcome. Only if the problem of people with disabilities becomes a common problem will it have an auspicious outcome. In particular, as far as the employment sector is concerned, we need to persuade businessmen that they stand to gain a great deal from becoming involved in measures to support these people and make use of their potential in undertakings because, as experience to date has shown, these people are the most loyal of employees. To close, I should like to congratulate you on the initiative which you have taken and on the programme which you have announced; however, both I and my fellow Members would say that, if it is to be successful, it needs to be integrated straight away and to include legislative measures.

Political group: PSE
I voted in favour of this report, but I am disappointed that some of the most important aspects were rejected. It seems that Parliament does not accept the common definition of a refugee, based on the full inclusive definition, which would cover gender-related persecution, include both state and non-state persecution and take account of the applicant's fear of further persecution. I cannot see how people can justify voting against such principles. In relation to the issue of a safe country of origin I do not think there is such a thing as a safe country anywhere. For certain people in certain sections of society, there is a danger in any country. In Ireland we have signed a bilateral agreement with Romania and Nigeria and we are planning to sign more such agreements in the future so that we can speed up the procedure of deportation. This really falls short of what we are required to do under international law. Individuals are not being treated as individuals, they are being treated as groups coming from the country concerned. The idea of a safe country, the idea that governments can actually claim that certain countries are safe, is quite incredible. We have to remember that there is no such thing as a safe country for certain people.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to express my warmest thanks to our rapporteur, Professor Trakatellis, for having once again very skilfully steered a report through the channels of the committee, a report that has aroused much interest, and one that is very important and, for that reason, has left itself open to the hundreds and hundreds of amendments that we have all tabled. I would like to draw particular attention to the fact that rarely during a committee’s work has there been so much cooperation among political groups, and for that an unqualified thank you goes to the rapporteur. As my fellow Member, Mrs Schleicher, criticised this report for perhaps not focussing adequately on the essentials and featuring too many good intentions, I might first of all say that the final result could have been a lot more cluttered. It could have expressed a lot more in the way of hopes for the future. I think the rapporteur has seen to it that it covers the whole issue, however. As for Mrs Schleicher’s own group, it added a totally new area of focus. Her group asked for the fifth special objective to be adopted, the one connected with gene therapy, diagnosis of genetic diseases, cloning, and so on. My group certainly was not of the opinion that this should be added here. Mr President, public health is a major area of activity for the European Union as the Treaty of Amsterdam does indeed oblige the Union to take account of the health issue in all areas of its work. In this respect we face some very demanding challenges. My group would particularly like to underline the importance of this sort of integration and the Commission is going to have the enormous task of adapting agricultural policy to the demands of health. Let us just think about the food we eat, for example. It must mean that in the future we will be eating more vegetarian food and rather less meat, and so on. In industrial policy it will mean that when we adopt a strategy on chemicals the basic issues of public health must be made very clear. It will also mean that the food industry will have to accept that tighter regulations will have to be adopted, for example, with regard to the salt content of food. There are many conflicts to come, and we can only hope that the Commission will work on these proposals and then the Council of Ministers and Parliament will clarify this situation further in the second reading.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the present text of the resolution leaves nothing to be desired as regards clarity. The European Parliament’s message is: the draft agreements must not be concluded unless the Council removes some fundamental objections on the part of Parliament. I continue to hope that the Presidency will duly take these objections into account, as, after all, it is obliged to do on the basis of the European Convention. It is the first time that the EU as such is concluding an agreement with a third country regarding judicial cooperation in criminal matters, but it is setting a bad example. In future, the Council should involve the elected representative bodies of the Member States and the European Parliament in the negotiations at an earlier stage. The texts of the draft agreements have been kept secret for too long. That is inadmissible, especially as fundamental civil rights seem to be squandered under the pretext of the United States’s fight against crime. Stating this fact has nothing to do with a sense of moral superiority or anti-American sentiment. The administration of justice in the United States does not provide sufficient guarantees for the rights of suspects. The negotiated procedures common in criminal proceedings mean that it is not precluded that suspects may be convicted although innocent, or convicted on insufficient evidence. This situation is exacerbated by the new legislation and practices in the United States since 11 September. If the European Union wishes to take its own legal protection seriously, it must only conclude the two agreements with the United States once the guarantees called for by the vast majority in Parliament have been incorporated into them. The Council has to redo its homework, and it is an illustration of the weakness of the democratic system in Europe that the Council has up to now been able to take the liberty of ignoring the views of the elected representative body – but of course we are not stupid.

Political group: PSE