GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, naturally we condemn these disgraceful deeds, whoever perpetrates them. But this resolution contains inaccuracies, distortions, lies and half-truths and so cannot be accepted. I believe this issue is too serious to be used as a party-political and ideological football. However, that is exactly what is happening. The Vatican has neither a global police force nor a global court to pursue these matters. But above all this is an issue for the state authorities. Of course, we support the Holy See in its efforts to combat these practices. We must be clear, however, about one thing. As Mrs Malmström has stated quite openly, this resolution clearly aims to weaken the role of the Holy See in international organisations where it is used on behalf of the family, for the protection of life, and against sexual abuse. This is often not the case with the governments of many Member States. This resolution is hypocritical and unacceptable. I therefore consider it to be dangerous because this issue was all too often abused in the twentieth century by totalitarian powers in order to discredit the Church. We must not go down this path. The people of the Church who lend their support to other people do not deserve such defamation.

Political group: PPE-DE
The rapporteur takes the view that ‘Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain’ are ‘holding up the liberalisation process’, by failing to transpose the ‘new regulatory package within the deadline set’, thereby endangering ‘European competitiveness’. We therefore congratulate the European Commission on ‘launching proceedings against those Member States who had not transposed the new regulatory package into national law’ and on calling for proceedings to be ‘completed as quickly as possible’ and the Commission is even urged to ‘make use of the broader range of instruments that are at its disposal’ to emphasise the punitive nature of the regulation. This position is unacceptable. As regards universal service, the rapporteur considers that its funding lacks coherence and finds that this should be open to all operators, including mobile network operators, by means of ‘public tender’. As to public service, or even services of general interest, there is hardly a word, apart from some concern about citizens with disabilities. This is, therefore, a report that fails to value public and universal service, a report that calls for liberalisation which deregulates further in the name of the primacy of competition and of the supposed economic advantages for businesses of ‘a fully competitive, open market’ in order to realise the ‘Lisbon Strategy’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, today’s debate has a special political significance. We are not discussing the substance of the agenda, that is the items already included or those that we all wish to see included. We are stating the political position of the European Parliament on convening the Intergovernmental Conference. There is nothing new here, apart from one aspect: the fact that with this opinion – assuming it is approved tomorrow – the European Parliament is adopting a positive strategy to assist in widening the IGC agenda. This also demonstrates its willingness to contribute, by means of its two representatives and its President, to reaching a more satisfactory final solution to this revision of the Treaty. This opinion is positive about the convening of the IGC and yet critical, as it would inevitably have to be, about the substance of this agenda. The constitutional framework has now been clarified. Everybody is aware of the Portuguese Presidency’s positive and ambitious approach, and they are also aware of the European Parliament’s position. The Commission has just drawn up a document in which it also explains some of its views, some of which are presented as options, which means that the ball, to use a sporting expression, is now in the European Council’s court. Therefore, Mr President, and my dear friend Dr Seixas da Costa, my question is this: without wishing to know more than we need to at the moment – in order not to compromise our common goal – I would like to know, from the contacts you have made during your tour of the capitals and from your own point of view, if there is any useful information you could give us. I ask this because at the moment our lobbying work is more important than our work within the European Parliament. This involves raising the awareness of the governments that are most reluctant to include further items on this IGC agenda, and persuading them to do so. My second question is for Commissioner Barnier. It relates to the Commission’s initiative. I was one of its critics, as I felt that the Commission should have gone further at the Helsinki European Council. I also feel, however, that the Commission did an excellent job, whether or not you agree with the solutions put forward in the document adopted on 26 January. However, why is the Commission concentrating only on the Amsterdam leftovers or perhaps on some other point? Why is it confining itself to stating that other issues could be included, specifically the Charter of Fundamental Rights or common foreign and security policy issues? I would therefore challenge the Commission to move forward and to begin, at least by providing alternatives, to work on these other points, which will perhaps later on form part of the agenda and contribute to its success. It could do this in the same thorough way in which it has worked on the proposals we are already familiar with. I shall finish by offering my warmest congratulations to the Portuguese Presidency. They do not have an easy task, but I know that it is in safe hands.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I also cannot see how anyone could oppose the Commission’s priorities. Who could oppose the objectives of succeeding in enlargement, ensuring stability and security, firmly supporting the relaunch of the economy and employment, controlling globalisation and ensuring that the resulting benefits are redistributed as widely as possible taking account of Kyoto, Monterrey and Johannesburg, not forgetting a knowledge-based society, developing research with increased appropriations and better interaction between science and society. I must, however, admit to you my concern over the deepening abyss between the stated objectives, on the one hand, and the means implemented in order to achieve them and therefore the results that will arise from them, on the other. Moreover, in European public opinion polls, this is often what destroys the European ideal. How can we succeed in enlargement without taking account of the diversity of the candidate countries – thereby better recognising the diversity of the current Member States – without taking sufficient account of their difficulties and needs, while at the same time we require them to succeed immediately in doing what some of the Fifteen have still not managed to do? How can we ensure security and also combat crime while limiting ourselves to a ‘Great Wall of China’ or ‘Berlin Wall’ type strategy, in other words substantially communitarising the acceptance and immigration rules in a realistic but humane way throughout the Union? How can we boost employment when free competition and the free market are detrimental to public services as a whole and when jobs are still considered a variable to be adjusted to benefit companies and when we attach more importance to financial, accounting and monetary concerns rather than to the economy and employment? How, lastly, can we control globalisation when the USA dominates the world in political and military terms and when large industrial and financial groups take care of the rest – often, moreover – under the control of the USA and large world stock exchanges? I do not know what the future holds for the Johannesburg conclusions, but I am fully aware of the way in which some have treated the Kyoto conclusions. Before concluding, I shall ask the question that I would have liked to ask when research was mentioned: the Council has imposed a moratorium on stem cells. What will happen at the end of 2003 if the Council does not manage to reach an agreement on the ethical issues relating to these hundreds of millions of euros in appropriations? I repeat, I share the Commission’s objectives. I cannot believe, however, that they will be achieved more successfully in 2003 than in 2002 or 2001, unless the necessary financial and political means are provided. The good qualities of the Commission and the Commissioners are not in question – the problem runs deeper than that. It is the whole problem of the European and world framework, the place of social issues, human issues and citizens. There is, in fact, a certain amount of discord among us on this point.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the developments in Nepal are worrying. I myself, who had planned to go there in the course of the next few months, have, for example, been advised against travelling. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world, with only USD 220 in GDP per person per year. Children’s development in Nepal is extremely problematic. Fifty-four per cent of children under five are said to be too short of stature and to be affected by stunted growth because of poor nutrition. Illiteracy is another major problem. Sixty-three per cent of men can read, but only 28% of women. This trend continues where access to basic and higher education is concerned. That is why the Finnish section of UNICEF has launched one of its biggest projects, aimed at improving girls’ schooling in Nepal, as well as at promoting village development. One other problem is the fact that education is extremely politicised. In spite of the unrest in the country, the project is nonetheless continuing both in Katmandu and outside the city. Those with whom I have talked say that the rebellion that has just taken place cannot be characterised simply as Maoist, but is a general trend. Certain people in this House believe that Nepal is in great danger of being partitioned in the same way as Tibet. Those I spoke to did not agree. We are also conscious that the unrest in the country has been caused by the fact that the population really does not have any confidence in the person who took over following the tragic events within the royal family last summer. This lack of confidence is partly due to the fact that senior members of the royal family are suspected of also having been guilty of murders other than those which occurred last summer. Our view is that there are serious threats to human rights, freedom of the press and other traditional freedoms, and this is something to which we must be alert. Other developments in the country must, however, continue.

Political group: ELDR
May I start by saying, Commissioner, that I was very pleased with what you had to say and I am as surprised to be saying that as perhaps you might be to hear me saying it. But given that there is a delay, which has already been deplored, I would hope that the period of that delay will be used constructively and that the Council and the Commission and indeed Parliament will reflect on how to get things as right as possible in what is clearly a key area. I was concerned to read a comment in the Financial Times last week when you, Commissioner, were in London – where you made quite an impact – about you forcing the creation of workers’ consultation committees and stating that Anna Diamantopoulou’s decision will dismay the UK Government and industry. Whilst I accept that the fact that it may dismay such illustrious bodies does not automatically make your proposals wrong, I trust that you would also admit that it does not automatically make them right either. I would like the Commission to bear in mind that at the time when Parliament put forward the amendments last April, the composition of this Parliament was indeed very different. At that time the Socialists were the largest group; happily that state of affairs no longer applies and hopefully will continue to no longer apply long into the future. But certainly the composition of this Parliament is very different and I would expect its conclusions to be different. Clearly we will continue to work in a spirit of constructive consensus but the epicentre of that consensus has moved sharply. So finally I would say that when the second reading comes up, if we are serious about creating jobs, if we are serious about keeping our industries really competitive, if we are serious about encouraging enterprise, then some of us may feel we have gone too far and that it may well be time to draw a line.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think that the argument put forward by Mrs Patrie is based on common sense. We should not be expected to vote before we have held a debate on the Green Paper on Consumer Protection. My group is therefore also in favour of Mrs Patrie’s request.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I voted in favour of the Rothley report, despite the fact that the amendments proposed by the and Liberals were rejected yesterday, for the reasons mentioned by President Cox. It is one naturally inadequate, step towards transparency and the settlement of an issue which insults the European Parliament. The amendment proposed by the group to delete paragraph 5 referring to the Bureau's decision on travel expenses etc. throws up questions about the real intentions of the European Parliament and confusion at the very least.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, this is an historic moment, as it is now, at last, quite clear to us all that the European Union has gradually developed into a community of values. We see this, now that the government of one Member State is being joined by a party which, as is known, does not respect all these values. I would also like to say that the position of the fourteen states emanating from the Council was justified, as in a way this is also a matter of the composition of the government of the European Union, meaning this is also a matter for the Council and not merely an internal affair of Austria’s. As Members of Parliament, we must pay particular attention to the fact that the work begun to establish fundamental rights is more important than ever. It is more important than ever that respect for, and non-violation of, human values and the rights of minorities, including the rights of all those who live within the territory of the European Union, form an essential component in the rule of law principle of the EU, and, for this reason, the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be made legally binding. It must not be allowed to remain a mere declaration. As important is the fact that Austria’s forces of democracy should be given support, as none of us wishes to isolate the country. We know that most Austrians respect these values. They have also shown how they feel: not all the demonstrations have taken place outside Austria. Doubtless there are also a lot of protest voters on the scene that have wanted a change in Austrian policy for a long time. I believe Parliament should support these forces of democracy. I also appeal to the Austrian President, that he might yet look into all the possibilities for forming a government made up of democratic forces.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, first of all I should like to thank Mr Koch for his report which has, at its heart, the issue of transport safety. The report looks at the issue of harmonising the examination requirements for safety advisors working in the areas of transportation of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway. I congratulate him on his excellent report. Transport safety has sadly been in the news recently: the Paddington rail crash in London, the terrible rail crash in Norway, the two aviation crashes involving EU citizens and the natural disaster involving the Erika off Brittany – all within the last four months – remind us that transport safety can never be taken for granted and that those charged with protecting the public must be highly motivated and highly qualified. The rapporteur has pointed out to the House that in its common position the Council has accepted six of Parliament's ten amendments put forward at first reading and that the substance of Parliament's other amendments has been retained. My Group will therefore support the common position and looks forward to the enactment of the legislation which will provide us with yet another tool in our fight to make transport in the European Union as safe as possible. When it comes to safety my Group will always support any initiatives to improve transport safety. We still have a lot of work to do in this area as recent events have proved.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we all recognise that many reforms need to take place in Turkey in order that its candidacy for the European Union can be taken forward as rapidly as possible. Turkey does not expect to be treated any more or any less favourably than any other candidate country, but it does expect to be treated fairly. I have long argued for the need to send a strong, positive signal to Turkey that will sustain the commitment to modernisation and westernisation that has been a feature of that country for 80 years or more. With the threat to us all from international terrorism and the continuing instability in the Middle East, it is vitally important that Turkey should remain firmly anchored within the alliance of the democracies. Parliament's report should therefore be upbeat and encouraging, recognising the enormous progress that has been made and the willingness of the Turkish authorities to carry out radical change, while emphasising the steps that still need to be taken to overcome difficulties and obstacles. Instead, the Oostlander report, even improved as it has been by amendment, is unsympathetic. It emphasises the negative, places undue weight on the often unverified allegations and views of extremists and minorities, and there is no warmth or friendship. It rather implies that Turkey is not very welcome. I am the most ardent campaigner for respect for human rights, but not where this is a cover for subversion or where extremists masquerade under a human rights placard. Of course we condemn torture – it is inexcusable wherever it takes place – but we should also recognise the political exploitation of torture allegations by opponents of the Turkish regime. I do not believe it is helpful for any country to institutionalise minorities. Every effort should be made to integrate minorities into the mainstream of a nation's life without denying them the right to express their own language or culture. In the name of democracy and human rights the report calls for measures that, without care, would merely serve to empower essentially undemocratic elements, giving greater influence and visibility to fundamental Islamists and extremists who wish to unravel any attachment to western values. On Cyprus there is a one-sided interpretation of events with no recognition of the positive steps taken by the Turkish Cypriot authorities, no call for generosity by both sides. I welcome the measures taken by the Commission in the last few days to help lift the embargo. It is most important that in December 2004 the European Union gives an early date for the opening of negotiations on Turkey's membership. I am afraid this report quite deliberately sends the opposite signal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in 1998 the European Commission started a procedure intended to conclude a cross-border book price agreement between Germany and Austria. Through this procedure, which was based on respect for European competition rules, the Commission was actually aiming to challenge the fixed book price system. Among other benefits, this system allows literary production to be supported and the survival of small publishing houses and bookshops to be assured. The European Parliament reacted strongly by adopting virtually unanimously, on 20 November 1998, a resolution which defended fixed book prices and which called on the Commission to bring its Community policy on book price agreements into line with cultural requirements. Under pressure from the French and German Governments, the Council used Parliament’s position to adopt a resolution on 8 February 1999 demanding, in particular, the continuation of the existing fixed book price systems. The steadfastness shown by the Council and Parliament led the Commission to acknowledge that competition rules could not be systematically applied in the book sector. It therefore confirmed that it had no intention of challenging the contractual agreements concluded in certain Member States or national laws such as the Lange Act in France. Nevertheless, some months later, and after the installation of the new Commission, the Directorate-General for Competition is once again pushing the Commission to act against cross-border agreements and fixed book prices. Faced with this new offensive by the Commission, which is bent on deregulation, it was important to react very quickly. I am therefore delighted about this debate and the new position being taken by the European Parliament on this issue. In its motion for a resolution, my group stresses that books are primarily cultural assets and must not therefore be subject to the competition rules in the same way as all other goods. Their unique nature must be fully recognised in the context of the EU’s cultural policy which we are trying to develop. This is why we hope that Parliament will confirm its position of November 1998 in order to defend cross-border agreements and fixed book prices. Why will the Commission not take up our proposal to extend the fixed book price system to all Member States? In order to take account of technological developments, the directive on e-commerce should also include the requirements indicated by the various national laws on fixed book prices to prevent this system from being circumvented. To conclude, I hope that the Council will show the same steadfastness as this House in protecting and promoting the fixed book price system. This system, as noted by our motion for a resolution, is better than any other at improving the production and distribution of literary works without eliminating competition.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am pleased that there has been an agreement. Obviously everybody is looking into the detail now and although we were very excited when we first got the agreement, I think a lot of people would agree that it is going to be quite difficult to find out whether it is going to benefit some of the smaller clubs – in particular, academy clubs – as much as we hoped. I know this has been touched on, but Stoke City in my constituency has an academy club as good as Manchester United and my fear is that it will get less money because it is not in the premier league. I would like the Commissioner to say whether she is going to look again at whether all clubs could be treated on the same level. I know FIFA has recommended it. I understand that a Hungarian player who has had his transfer put on hold is probably going to mount a legal challenge. What would happen if that legal challenge is successful? Would we then have to go back to the drawing-board?

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, an omission appears to have been made. In the list of tabled motions for a resolution which you have just read out, no mention is made of the compromise motion tabled jointly by the /EFA Groups and by Mrs Kuntz and Mr Coûteaux.

Political group: PSE