GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, there is no doubt that cigarettes seriously damage your health. However, it is hypocrisy on the part of the Commission to maintain that it is helping to protect public health by introducing more taxes on tobacco products, which are a widely consumed product, when it leaves consumers at the mercy of very dangerous products in the food chain, imported tobacco products of dubious quality, and is pushing for health to be completely privatised. One thing is for sure: increasing taxes – and hence the price to the consumer – will not reduce smoking. Otherwise it would surely have happened by now. What will happen if taxes are increased is that consumers on lower incomes will be forced to buy cheaper contraband cigarettes from third countries which are possibly even more damaging to their health. In other words, smuggling will increase, not decrease, as the Commission maintains. The proposed measures will increase the cost of living at a time when consumers' wages are constantly being eroded by the policy of the European Union. The campaign against smoking and the campaign against tobacco cultivation in the European Union have become one and the same and we are against that. The campaign against smoking benefits consumers' health, while the campaign against tobacco cultivation benefits large-scale producers and industry, mainly in the USA, to the detriment of tobacco farmers and processors in southern Europe. That is precisely why we are against abolishing or even reducing tobacco-farming subsidies, as many would have us do. That would wipe out tobacco farming in the European Union, which would then be wholly dependent on imported cigarettes. These are just some of the reasons why we are against any form of additional excise because, as I have already said, it does nothing to protect public health; in fact, it may well have the opposite effect. Finally, we suggest that revenue from tobacco taxes should be used to fund education, preventive measures and centres where smokers can kick the habit and obtain treatment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would first of all like to say that, unfortunately, the report by the Committee on Budgets does not exist in all the languages. The Greek version did not reach us until just an hour ago, and I believe that it is something that we must pay particular attention to. I understand that it may have been due to the urgency of the procedure, but we are a new Parliament, we are just starting out, and I believe that some principles and procedural mechanisms must be upheld. I would also like to make two comments on the amending and supplementary budget 4/99 and I believe that the matter should be discussed with a representative of the Council. We see various activities: for example, we have been informed that the Yugoslav Opposition is organising conferences and demonstrations in Brussels. My question concerns how these activities are being funded. These Parliament-approved appropriations are reserved solely for Yugoslavia for strictly humanitarian action, but on what political criteria do the Commission and the Council of Ministers base their decisions as to when and how they should be used? Other fundamental issues, however, such as the continuing phenomenon of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, directed against the Serbian, Gypsy and Turkish communities, are not being addressed at all. The second point I would like to make concerns the EUR 30 million which is being given to Turkey as humanitarian aid. It is a sound move, a positive act, as is the involvement of the European Investment Bank and the use of other programmes. However, we must not forget the principles laid down by Parliament as regards relations with Turkey and which the Turkish Government should be taking into consideration. We saw no signs of this in the meeting two days ago with the Turkish Foreign Minister.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, there are two points that we need to take into account here. Firstly, we need to have good relations with our neighbours because it is in the interest of our foreign policy to do so. Secondly, how can this be arranged so that it is commensurate with the interests and capacities of the European Union? These two aspects need to be considered together. We must realise, after all, that to a large extent everyone has their own clientèle here. How can we develop an automatic procedure to bring these countries – or a number of these countries – almost directly into the European Union? If we continue, covertly, to operate the clientèle system, then we will be well on the way to destroying the European Union, because the European Union cannot cope with this. We are currently undergoing the arduous process of producing a constitution, which may just be capable of setting out a reasonable way to organise the internal affairs of a Union of 25 or 27 countries. Mr Verheugen, what will we do with Turkey if it does not meet the conditions for opening negotiations in 2004? Surely in that case we will have to make a second offer, alongside full membership, at least for a certain period of time. That is why I think it is absolutely essential for the wider Europe concept to be improved in respect of our neighbouring countries in Europe, making it a ‘European Economic Area plus’. This would create a second multilateral ring of countries with whom we maintain close relations, but where full membership is not the only option. This consequence of a multilateral order has not so far been elucidated sufficiently clearly by the Commission. We must ensure that this also includes those countries whose future may lie in the Union, but which will not be able to become members of the European Union in the next ten years, for whatever reason, and we must ensure that they are not left out. This applies to some of the countries of the western Balkans, just as it does to Moldova, Ukraine or, for example, Turkey, if a decision of the kind that I have just described were to be made next year. Obviously this also means that we need another strategy, but one that is equally weighty – I do not wish the Members from southern Europe to misunderstand us – for the Barcelona Process and the Mediterranean countries. The objective in this case is not to provide a possible opening to membership, but to forge a close neighbourly relationship of a different nature. In any case, the discussions so far both in this House and in the Commission have lacked the necessary systematic approach that will make this a viable policy in practice. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
We abstained from voting on the Ghilardotti report, which argued in favour of gender budgeting, in other words public budgets taking into account the ‘gender perspective’ and thus supposedly establishing a little more equality between men and women. The intention is good, but the means envisaged are not, particularly if one looks at them in the context of the broad economic orientations of the Member States of the European Union which, contrary to what the author of the report claims, are not reducing inequalities in Europe but are, on the contrary, helping to make them worse. Members of the European Parliament, sitting in their ivory tower, can imagine what they want to imagine. The reality is very different. By giving the major industrial and financial groups an increasingly free hand, by destroying public services or attacking social protection, the Member States of the European Union are not reducing inequalities: they are entrenching them even deeper. By refusing to put a stop to dismissals, by favouring moderation in wage claims, and by reducing the amount of pensions, their action is aggravating the misfortunes suffered by women, who are more often than men the victims of unemployment, insecurity and forced part-time working. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure).

Political group: GUE-NGL
To a large extent, the Union is gambling its future on the success or failure of a common immigration policy. It is a challenge and an opportunity. This programme, directed at countries in which immigration originates and transit countries in order to help them to manage migratory flows, is essential and deserves our support. The management of migratory flows affects the demography, the economic and social balance and the harmonious coexistence of the Community’s citizens. The common immigration policy must take this into account and ensure that Member States have margin for manoeuvre in terms of managing their migratory flows. The programme contributes to creating a common legal and administrative culture for the handling of the phenomenon of migration based on our principles and values of respect for people. That is the only way we can effectively combat marginalisation and the organised crime of human trafficking, which causes so many victims each year. We must strengthen European immigration policy through concrete actions: joint repatriations of illegal immigrants, the implementation of a European visa bank or the common management of external borders. The latter, with shared responsibility, must be extended to third countries, to the Union’s partners, by means of the including in Association Agreements a clause on cooperation in the field of immigration. Report: Jensen (A5-0399/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a few weeks ago in Parliament we voted on the Maat report on the welfare of animals during transport. The Irish presidency has proposed a compromise on this issue and the House needs to be aware that this compromise is completely unacceptable if the way Parliament voted is taken into account. I was not happy with the end result in the Maat report. Many people concerned about animal welfare felt that it did not go far enough. At the very least the Irish compromise should have taken into account the will of Parliament, particularly in relation to a number of crucial issues, for example the temperature of the vehicle in which animals are transported and the fact that it will not be mandatory to unload them temporarily at ports. The most important and crucial issue is that Parliament voted quite clearly for a maximum overall journey time for slaughter, which was also reflected in the declaration signed by over 400 Members of this House. The compromise proposed by the Irish presidency completely ignores the will of Parliament. Many animal welfare groups that are very concerned about this have contacted me. They feel that, if this Irish compromise goes through, it will be a retrograde step in relation to animal welfare. The Irish compromise should at least take into account the transport of animals for slaughter with a maximum overall journey time.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen. My dear friend Elmar Brok referred in the House just now to examinations and what students do in order to pass them. Of course, one of the things which students do in order to pass examinations is to revise beforehand. I should like to tell you which points I think you should revise if you want to pass your examinations with flying colours. The first thing you have to do in Nice, Minister, and I say this to you and through you to all your colleagues, is to adopt an agreement which maintains the correlation of powers – large and small – and interinstitutional balance. Secondly, as far as the matter of the Commission is concerned, you know full well – we all know full well – that the problem with the Commission is not one of numbers. The problem with the Commission is a qualitative problem. In other words, we want a new Commission with 27 Commissioners, but we want a Commission which has a political role, which again has a political role, and the president of which has the powers needed for the Commission to do its job. As far as voting in the Council is concerned, I think that the double majority is the best system because it is more representative and more objective. As far as extending qualified majority voting is concerned, we are agreed that, unless we make some sort of move in this direction, we shall encounter a great many problems. So I think that, as a first move, it should already be agreed that trade policy needs to come under qualified majority voting. As far as foreign policy is concerned, we now live in Mr Solana's bright and beautiful world and let me tell you – if we leave the common foreign policy solely within the framework of intergovernmental cooperation, then we shall be making a big mistake. The common foreign policy needs to be fully integrated into Community procedure because only then shall we have the necessary safety valves. Finally, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I must, of course, mention the Charter, which affects millions of European citizens. I take the view that Nice must at least accept the compromise called for by the European Parliament, i.e. for the Charter to be combined with Article 6, paragraph 2.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to give an explanation of vote with regard to the votes cast on today’s enlargement reports and firstly state that I agree with the points Patricia McKenna made concerning foreign and security policy matters in connection with enlargement. At the same time I wish to say that I voted in error in favour of Amendment No 4, which was tabled for Mrs Carlsson’s report, as in fact I opposed this amendment, which I consider to be of dubious value with regard to the area’s stability. - Schroedter report (A5-0252/2001)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Myller on her very sound report. Since 1972, we have had Environment Action Programmes one, two, three, four and five. A few years ago, key officials in the Directorate-General for the Environment said that they had done enough, and that there was no need for a sixth environment action programme. If the Member States implement what has already been decided, then all will be well in the environment. We as the Group of the protested loudly against this, and we asked candidate-Commissioner, Mrs Wallström, to issue a sixth environment action programme anyway, which she did; she has kept her promise. We have to say that we, along with Mr Lange, believe that the legislative component is rather flimsy. The extensive explanatory note was much better. That is why we as majority in Parliament wanted to include this extensive explanatory note in the legislation. Hence the many amendments. We have now also received the Prodi paper for the Gothenburg Summit. It has to be said that this paper contains a number of interesting ideas which go even further, such as the abolition of subsidies for fossil fuels until 2010, and 7% bio-fuels for cars and lorries, also in 2010. We as the Group of the have tabled amendments of that ilk. We hope that the s and Liberals will support them, so that they can be incorporated in the legislation. If that is the case, Parliament will be supporting an ambitious programme for the next ten years. According to the Liberals, climate, waste and bio-diversity had to be included. Without the sixth environment action programme, the whole issue of bio-diversity would have been overlooked. It would not have been given priority in the current policy. That is why I welcome this fresh initiative.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, clearly the accession of ten new countries to the European Union is set to change the relationship we have with our neighbours. I would like to highlight a fundamental aspect of the Union’s cooperation with our neighbours, that of cross-border cooperation. Cross-border cooperation has played a key role in European integration. It should also play a key role in our relations with our new neighbours following enlargement. It is to be hoped that the new European Constitution will give cross-border cooperation the place it deserves. Our new neighbours can be divided into three different groups. There are the countries of Eastern Europe and the countries of the Mediterranean basin. The Balkan States must be borne in mind too, although further accessions may take place in the future in that area. Cross-border cooperation may not be sufficient to facilitate perfect collaboration with neighbouring countries. We can and must however take advantage of its benefits. It allows us to get to know neighbouring countries, and to understand and trust them. If we know, understand and trust each other, we can work together and improve our relationship. We will be able to export well-being and stability, to quote the Commissioner. These two elements are crucial to the future of both the European Union and of our neighbours. I would also like to draw your attention to the particular case of Kaliningrad, in Northern Europe. This area will become an island surrounded by Member States of the European Union. We therefore need to establish a special system of cooperation with Kaliningrad. As Mr Yegorov, the current governor of the area has said on many occasions, there needs to be a system of cross-border cooperation with both Lithuania and Poland. In my opinion, relations with neighbouring countries from the Mediterranean to northern Russia pose a significant challenge to the European Union.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, with regard to the communication on vegetable protein production, I join in what has been said by my colleagues in this House. The Commission’s study is disappointing, as it is not very ambitious and is based on exclusively economic criteria. The European Union’s situation with regard to its deficit of vegetable proteins, due to the Blair House agreements, in which we agreed to a reduction in our vegetable protein production while in the mean time we were feeding our livestock on meat meal from dead animals, required that the Commission take a more ambitious and broader approach to this study. It does not take into account, as has already been said, the strategic significance for European livestock breeding of being dependent on imports from third countries for the supply of vegetable proteins, and of the fact that those imports consist almost exclusively of genetically modified food. Nor does it take into account what it would mean to increase these crops that are rich in vegetable proteins in order to re-establish the balance and capacity to supply of the whole of the European Union, which would undoubtedly be very beneficial for achieving more extensive and better quality livestock. In short, the study does not take into account any of the elements on which our agricultural policy should be based: food quality, protection and development of the environment and sustainable development, because neither is there any element in the study that tells us what an increase in these crops would mean in terms of creating another economic activity in agriculture, and in terms of the farmers themselves using them and processing them into food for their livestock, which would also mean a considerable increase in income in the rural economy. In any event, what the Commission is telling us about it being better to continue importing and depending on third countries because it is cheaper is not correct. We have experience of the cheapest thing not being the best thing.

Political group: PSE
I had tabled a host of amendments to the draft report by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and a number of them have been adopted. Their purpose was to qualify certain proposals and requests made to the political parties and national governments, not in order to weaken such proposals and requests but in order to respect the principle of subsidiarity and the independence of parties and governments and to prevent interference of doubtful quality which would, moreover, be in danger of being counter-productive. In my opinion, asking for quotas to be introduced by means of legislation or insisting on legislating on the principle of parity democracy is going too far. I therefore consider that, in this area, there must be no head-on clash with countries and parties that – often, incidentally, out of respect for women – do not want quotas for women, such quotas implying that women are apparently incapable of carving out a place in the parties and in the eyes of the electorate. That place may also be won through the endurance, courage, aptitude and quality that should also be shown by the men who wish to take their places here. I was keen to make these points in order to prevent this report, for which I voted, from being counter-productive in terms of its objective, which I share.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we are not satisfied with the budget as it concerns agriculture. Our proposals were not taken on board, although the Council made us a few small concessions, but our essential demand for a new institutional agreement in order to be able to transfer surplus funds from the first pillar to the second, has not been met, the belief being that things simply cannot be done that way. We now note with astonishment that the exact opposite happened in Copenhagen, in that funds were, with a stroke of the pen, transferred from rural development in the second pillar in order to make room for funds to be disbursed as direct payments. I have to say that I find this scandalous. We in Parliament drafted a resolution expressing our opposition to direct payments and to their being transferred to the new Member States of the EU, and also stating that we take it as read that payments as a whole will not be affected, but that this is being done by way of support for rural development, that is, in the second pillar. That has not been complied with. The Brussels conclusions imposed a financial cap that does not exhaust the possibilities offered by Berlin. No cap was imposed on the financing of the second development, and we had hoped that this would mean that reform could include Parliament within the second pillar, enabling it to participate in these areas and enabling progress to be made with the second pillar. But if a Council decision takes the funds, agreement to which had been reached in this House by a great deal of effort, and transfers them back to a development that we do not want, that, Commissioner, is not in accordance with Parliament's intentions. I therefore take the view that this cannot be approved in this way, that we will have to deal with it in the negotiations on the next Budget, and that we very definitely expect the European Convention to make codecision applicable in matters of agricultural policy both as regards its substance and also what are termed the mandatory funds. Rather than, in the long term, putting up with the Council shifting things hither and thither as it pleases, we want to be able to vote on the budget and decide these matters for ourselves.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I rise not because of the topic of Mr Alavanos’ question, but to comment on Minister Sasi’s answer and to put a question to him. Minister Sasi, perhaps you should have said that this was more of a political debate and that a conclusion would be reached in Helsinki. Instead you addressed many different issues under the same heading and no clear conclusion can be drawn from what you said. I would like to ask a question. You made the particular point about Turkey being judged on the basis of the Copenhagen criteria. If Turkey is therefore accorded applicant status in Helsinki, are we then to assume that it has fulfilled those criteria? Please answer us that. We should not be bothering ourselves with all these other factors. Instead, we should try to talk some sense here. I am saying all this, Mr President, because I believe that when the Council comes here, it should have more respect for this institution. We are parliamentarians after all!

Political group: PPE-DE