GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, we are agreed that the EU should no longer be synonymous with rubbish and poison being found in foodstuffs. Yet, a food agency does not create any security, and a White Paper ought not to be misused for the purpose of putting off long overdue decisions. We need a change of direction in foodstuffs policy. In the past, the Commission has made itself too much the mouthpiece of industry and all too often trampled on the precautionary principle. You spoke of labelling from field to table. All right, but what of the duty to label feedingstuffs? What of the duty to label genetically-modified additives? You know of the loophole in the Order on novel foods. What of an Order on novel feedingstuffs, an Order relating to genetically-manufactured feedingstuffs? What of a stamp of quality for foodstuffs free from genetic modification? What is not needed is a mere shunting yard of a White Paper. Rather, what we need here is a quick decision. As long as two years ago, the Commission gave us an assurance about these matters. Really, we ought to have had these regulations a long time ago. What I am expecting from you here is a clear timetable and a clear statement as to when these legal decisions are to be taken. In the field of PCBs, too, more limit values are needed. We know from the EPA in the United States that there are further toxic PCBs. We also need clear rules and bans. It is not acceptable that you should demand more safety in the field of antibiotics too when, at the same time, the Commission permits antibiotics in additives. As we have already been reminded, we must finally have a clear positive list in the field of pesticides as well. May I say one more thing. It is completely irresponsible to speak of industry’s accepting responsibility for its own actions while it postpones decisions about environmental and risk liability. We in the European Parliament, and it is to the big groups that I am addressing this remark, must... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I do not have anything against Victor Emmanuel as such or against anybody from Austria referred to in the motion, although I am old enough to remember the Italian occupation of my country during the reign of Victor Emmanuel. In any case, this is not the issue, the issue is the extremely general wording contained in the motion, i.e. “civil rights for members of former royal European houses, any former royal European houses”. We too have a former royal house, whose misdemeanours are a lot more recent. I should like to declare, therefore, on behalf of the PASOK representatives, that we find it totally unacceptable that these issues are being discussed as it is an intrusion into an extremely delicate matter which should be discussed in our country before being brought to bear at European level. Besides, as regards the basic matter of the status of the ex-Royal Family, the Greek people expressed their opinion quite clearly in the 1974 referendum.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, thanks to the improvement in communication networks, particularly within cities, in population centres, pedestrianisation and the increase in the volume of four-wheeled traffic, the number of users of two-wheeled vehicles is increasing every day, as you have said. I would like to ask you, Commissioner, whether you are intending to implement any type of specific initiative to promote the use of two-wheeled vehicles, bearing in mind, furthermore, the current situation with regard to the cost of insurance, which is leading to a significant reduction in the numbers of these vehicles sold.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to ask three very brief questions. Does the Commissioner think as he said, that the Stability and Growth Pact should be considered to be neutral regardless of whether the economic cycle is experiencing faster growth or slower growth? My second question is, does the Commissioner think that it is unimportant whether public spending is undertaken as current expenditure or as investment and whether investment expenditure should not be considered as an instrument to combat a cycle of economic depression? My third question is, where does growth feature in the Stability Pact?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must confess that I have found it hard to speak in this debate and I would, in fact, start by remarking that we must all bear in mind the words of Mrs Lulling. Above all, however, we must consider the enormous effort made by Commissioner Bolkestein in order to complete the internal market, which is absolutely crucial to European integration and also to Europe’s economic recovery. I therefore believe that this Commission initiative basically makes sense, but unfortunately, the European Parliament should not give its support to it just yet, because such a move, in isolation, would add little to the real discussion, which concerns the crucial liberalisation of the postal services sector. At this stage, given the current structure of the market, the Commission proposal could lead to various unwanted effects, the most perverse of which would surely be the widespread increase in the price of postal services for citizens, without this yielding any immediate benefit. Not even the proposals for amendment and there is no guarantee that they will be adopted would prevent this. It is indeed sometimes legitimate to sacrifice this benefit in the short term, especially in the case of public services, although this must only be done if this interest will be safeguarded in the medium and long term, with the clear benefits that this provides. This does not, unfortunately, appear to be the case before us or at least it is not clear that the proposal accepts this fundamental principle. The postal services sector has been exempt from VAT since 1977, a time when, it is true, the sector was dominated by State monopolies, which meant that competition was practically non-existent. Despite the changes that have taken place since then, there is absolutely no basis for the idea that this area of public service provision now operates in an open market. And yet, this is the only situation in which the State would be justified in exerting its exclusive power for political regulation without having to resort to tax or other types of incentives that guarantee social effectiveness. If, therefore, we acknowledge that upholding the current status quo for a long time to come could harm the much-needed development of this sector, we must also accept that this proposal alone will not eliminate or reduce existing distortions of competition, especially given the diversity of VAT rates still being applied in the Union. Rejecting this initiative can, therefore, only be seen as a recommendation to the Commission to include the proposal in the framework of a broader debate on the total liberalisation of the sector, ensuring that the services provided are completely effective, without overcharging citizens who use the service from the outset.

Political group: PSE
I should like to thank the Commissioner for the clear account, and I am of the opinion that what is being proposed can optimise and improve the internal market principles. To that extent, I am in support of the proposals. The Anglo-Dutch example which the Commissioner quoted is related, inter alia, to the additional taxes which are being levied in each Member State. I know that taxes fall within the national competences, but I believe that the Commission is entitled to intervene if competition and internal market regulation are hindered. You state that you yourself are not responsible for taxation, but it is always the Commission that does the talking. If I therefore address the Commissioner, I assume that, formally, I am addressing the Commission and not specifically the Commissioner. I thus assume that you can take this message with you, as my Irish fellow MEP pointed out. In addition, I should like to ask why it is not possible to take a registered car from another Member State to the country where you live. In this way, far better use could, in fact, be made of the internal market.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, allow me to ask Commissioner Byrne one more question. The situation is this: you tabled a text which no longer complies with the standard procedure agreed with the Council. We noticed that. We then table our proposed amendments, which you consider to be correct as far as principle and procedure are concerned. Then you differentiate between what applies to a report tabled to us under Article 152 alone and this report, which you have tabled under both 37 and 152 and you say that is why we need separate references to comitology. Of course, we too consulted our legal service and the text which I read out to you contains precisely this reference to comitology. The legal text is therefore confirmed. The Commission is being thick-skinned here; it is saying no, we stand by our proposal as we have already done on a similar occasion in the past here in Parliament. Hence, Mr Byrne, when you say I should consider withdrawing the amendment, I should like to ask you to consider if you do not agree with it, especially as it complies with the decision on comitology. Then we can use the simplified procedure. Generosity is incumbent upon the Commission, not the rapporteur.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Over recent years, Taliban fundamentalism has hit women, and today its effects are still ruining the lives of Afghan women. Men are still armed and this poses an obvious threat. Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the day before yesterday a seven-year-old girl was sold into marriage in order for her family to deal with hunger and meet their needs. The President-in-Office of the Council has given me a very committed answer, which we already knew. To expand on it, and without returning to past questions, would the Spanish Presidency be prepared to adopt any measures to ensure that seven-year-old girls do not continue to be sold into marriage? Would you at least be willing to communicate the urgent need to adopt measures to prevent this horror?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I represent the north-west of England which, with the cities of Manchester and Liverpool, is I suppose one of the most densely populated parts of the European Union. We have a particular problem with marine flat fish – flounders in the estuary of the River Mersey in fact – which are exhibiting extreme intersex characteristics and we do not know what the cause is. We have a lot of chemical factories around the estuary and suspicion has fallen on them, but the scientists are also looking at the detergents which are used both for industrial purposes and in our own homes. They are looking at oestrogens – synthetic oestrogens in particular – used perhaps in the pill by hundreds or thousands of women in the region. Indeed, they are looking at natural oestrogen produced by women in their millions. It could be a combination of all these things – and this is the difficulty. We do not know the answers and there are more than 500 chemicals from which we could choose. I have doubts about the use of the precautionary principle and of course, about the misuse of the precautionary principle – by its nature we never know when it is appropriate to use it or not. There must be very great concern about the long-term effects of putting thousands of chemicals into the natural environment, but it is difficult to identify exactly which chemicals to target. The evidence of falling sperm counts, of rising levels of breast cancer, of female polar bears growing penises or whatever gives rise to very real fears and we have to be prepared to ban some substances on suspicion alone, even before we have firm scientific evidence. I support both the Commission's proposals and the rapporteur's suggestions. However, we can be sure that there are many disputes to come when we start highlighting chemicals which must be banned.

Political group: ELDR
President-in-Office Haarder, I do not think the Council wanted to consider the fact that the PKK has dissolved itself, that it has not committed any more armed actions and that many of its leading members have handed themselves over to the Turks. It is absurd to have included the PKK on the list of terrorists, particularly in view of these recent events that I have mentioned, and this will encourage Turkey to be even more cruel towards the Kurds; it will prevent any further peace agreement and will exacerbate the situation. I must emphasise the fact that the PKK was included on this list at the moment when it had unilaterally started to respect the human rights of the Turkish people far more than Turkey itself. I therefore believe that the Council should reconsider its decision and remove the PKK from the terrorist list, particularly because its members are no longer terrorists.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the management of EU fisheries is at an important juncture with key stocks in the North Sea and elsewhere in decline and the future of fishing and fish processing industries therefore under threat. So it is essential that the Commission gets it right, proposing a management system which ensures sustainable fisheries backed up by up-to-date independent and verifiable scientific evidence involving stakeholders and installing confidence in the system. However, as the first set of CFP reform proposals nears a conclusion, I find myself more cynical about the process and less optimistic about the future for Scotland's fishing-dependent communities than ever before. Why should this be so? Is a workable EU fisheries policy achievable? I have always believed that the only way to succeed in achieving the necessary balance between resource, harvesting and conservation and to better encourage compliance with any management regime is to have a regime with which the stakeholders can have some faith. That is why I have welcomed the Commission's support for regional advisory councils as a step in the right direction, towards a much-needed new and better way of doing things. Actions, however, have to accompany words and I have been shocked by the attitude displayed by the Commission recently in relation to cod and other white fish quotas for next year. To announce the possible closure of the Scots fishing industry with the 'we know best' and 'it's all your own fault' statements attributed to Commissioner Fischler seems to fly in the face of the stated intention to involve stakeholders more. This 'tough guy' approach, presumably designed to make the actual outcome for next year seem relatively palatable, should have no place in a new CFP. The sad truth is that irreparable damage has been done by the Commission in the last six months to the Scottish confidence in Europe being capable of managing fisheries at all. With Mr Fischler's about-turn on deep-water management, followed by the insensitive presentation of the ICES's advice on cod and its repercussions for Scotland, it is little wonder that conspiracy theories abound. Does Commissioner Fischler want to be remembered as the architect of a new and successful EU fisheries policy? Or the one who brought desolation to communities and destruction to a way of life? Sadly at this moment, he seems to me more likely to achieve the latter. I and the leadership of the Scottish fishing industry have played a constructive role, working with environmental organisations in the consultative process towards CFP reform. I would like to see the Commission and the Council taking due account of that and giving some return and not penalising the Scots for their efforts.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there is no doubt that the Brussels fiasco has landed the European Union in a grave crisis. This is the first failure of an enlarged European Union, even before the accession of new Member States. It represents a setback for European integration, but what brought it about? The Brussels summit did not focus on the creation of a democratic, social and peaceful Europe. Instead, power and influence were haggled over, and a narrow-minded nationalism again prevailed in yet another demonstration of the fact that Intergovernmental Conferences are completely unsuited to advancing European integration. The European idea sustained serious damage at the summit, at which it was the real loser. There were winners, though, as well; they include, for example, the USA, for it is the USA that will profit from the summit’s conclusions on European security and defence policy, which tied Europe and NATO together as brothers in arms and put us under American guardianship in security policy matters. I am in favour of a European constitution – a modern and progressive one. It was with that in mind that I involved myself in the Convention, but it should give politicians like ourselves serious misgivings that – figuratively speaking – nobody took to the streets to demonstrate in favour of the constitution that the Convention produced. Only 38% of the public at large have ever heard anything about the Convention and only a fraction of them are familiar with the text. Quite apart from that, the real problem is to be found elsewhere, in that the public are not convinced that their fundamental concerns and needs are a priority. The degree to which they are right about this is demonstrated, to take one example, by the fact that the IGC as a whole did not even once turn its attention to the inherent contradictions between Part 3 and Part 1 of the draft, and by the manifest fact that two mutually antithetical economic philosophies are to remain in the text of the constitution – the social market economy on the one hand and free competition on the other. That is not the way to get people enthusiastic about a European constitution. I hope that the time of reflection – the crisis – will be understood as an opportunity. I urge you to have an open discussion with the public about the constitutional project, and, above all, take seriously the serious criticisms that civil society makes of the Convention’s draft. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we in the support the general approach and objectives presented by the Spanish Presidency for the Barcelona meeting and we were able to discuss them in detail when Vice-President Rato y Figaredo appeared before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Nevertheless, I would like to make a few comments. One is that we believe that, by the end of the Barcelona European Council, there must be a timetable for the objectives set. Two years have passed since Lisbon and the truth is that, if we look at the evolution of productivity levels, for example, the evolution of the economy itself, not in absolute terms, but in comparison with the United States, or the failure to achieve certain fundamental objectives such as the liberalisation of certain sectors which are still over-protected and which clearly distort competition, the results of this process are not so far satisfactory. Therefore, in order to make the meeting of the European Council credible, in addition to creating another list of things to be done, as has often been said, we must establish a clear relationship between the objectives and the timetable.

Political group: ELDR
To me they are similar so we can vote on them together, if possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, whichever way you look at it, Mr Graça Moura's report is a good report, because it deals with questions of political strategy, leaving topical or daily issues out of the equation. There have been huge changes in China over the last decade. Ten years ago, we witnessed the dramatic events in Tiannamen Square; today we are witnessing a solution – of sorts – to the problem of both Macao and Hong Kong, improvements in Taiwan, involvement in the World Trade Organisation and, after Greece, the next Olympic Games in 2008, which all goes to show that progress has been made. Does that mean that it is all good news? By no means. China is not doing at all well when it comes to human rights. And it is not doing well it comes to human liberties. However, when you evaluate questions of political strategy, you have to decide on a cut-off point. And our cut-off point has to be a democratic China, a pole of stability in a multipolar, peaceful world. And that is what our political strategy should be geared towards. Accusations and one-sided relations do not bring about policies, which is precisely why the whole point of political strategy is to look to the future and not get bogged down in day-to-day issues. Moderation, stable objectives and efficiency are the common ground for joint action in such cases. China has worked with us in the fight against terrorism and that is a peak on its development curve. Our relations are improving constantly and, more to the point, I hope that we shall have more improvements in the future. Anyone meeting Chinese delegates nowadays will find a new generation of people, very young people, 30, 40, 50 at most, with a good level of education and a good grounding in world affairs and that is most encouraging. China itself has found a formula for progress, calling the change ‘market Communism’ and shying away from the term ‘market policy’ in both economic and social relations. That is how it is developing and I think that we should help it by persuading it to correct its bad points. And there are a lot of them! Nevertheless, we must not be subversive in our persuasion. I think China is on the right path because, for better or for worse, it is one of the lucky countries, a lucky nation with a long history of culture and civilisation and the heritage to match. And in the changes being made to the ideological and political values which every society craves for the sake of its own cohesion, China's history and culture carry great weight and, as far as I know, it is precisely these cultural elements which derive from Confucius, from humanitarian values and so on, which efforts are being made to restore as social values in China, which is a good thing because they will help bring about a balanced and humanitarian society. Having said which, I trust that when we come to vote on Mr Graça Moura's report tomorrow, subject to a few improvements, we shall set the European Union's strategy towards China on the right political course.

Political group: PSE