GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Romania will certainly not be among the countries that accede to the European Union in the first round, but it just goes to show that the Commission hit on the right strategy when it decided to put twelve countries on the same footing as negotiating partners, and then to determine, on the basis of certain criteria, which countries should become members and when. Firstly, this allows us to dispel any fears our citizens may have that twelve countries, extending as far as Bulgaria and Romania, are to join the European Union in one fell swoop, overwhelming it in the process. At the same time, we can argue that a country has to meet a set of very clear standards before becoming a member. All this is to be found in the report by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, and on behalf of my group, I would like to thank her warmly for this report. Romania did not set out on the road to Europe until a very long time after the fall of the Iron Curtain. The democratic government has only had since 1996 to catch up on all the things that other countries were able to make an early start on, and with that in mind, it has achieved a considerable amount of success these past four years. A word about how matters stand on the security front: Romania was one of those countries that gave Europe, and the Atlantic Alliance its backing during the Kosovo conflict. We should therefore take this opportunity to think about sending out a signal. If Romania’s accession is not going to be for some time yet, then the Atlantic Alliance should give thought to incorporating Romania into its mechanisms earlier than originally planned. The same goes for our European security and defence policy. Since we are aware that Romania and Slovenia have already been involved in discussions on the first round of NATO enlargement, as countries applying for NATO membership, NATO must not allow its enlargement process to come to a standstill. We can use Romania to lend weight to our argument when seeking to impress on our citizens that it is in our interests to stabilise Europe. After all, Romania will form part of the European Union’s external border in the future. It is an important factor in the stabilisation of the Balkans as a whole, and of the region of South Eastern Europe as a whole. That being so, it is in our interests to extend our system of rights and freedoms as far as Romania, and this is certainly an argument we can use in a critical debate with our public. If we do not give countries such as Romania and Bulgaria any hope for the future, the situation will remain unstable and that is no good to Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office, what you said was perfectly clear. I would just like to ask, if I may, for a few more details on what happens now, following the decisions taken in Seville. If I have understood rightly, the Spanish Presidency was praised on this account; it was decided that efforts to find a solution would continue but I believe that a number of addenda to this famous text were also discussed which will not be binding but which are politically significant. Is there any news since Seville? Do we know how this text is to be improved and what the alternatives are?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, would you agree that it is of paramount importance that we have a European solution to this problem and would you accept our congratulations that you have put your best efforts towards that in the events over the weekend. Nevertheless, would you not agree that since the unanimous confirmation of the safety of the date-based export scheme, provided you personally endorse it in this House, as I hope you will, there is a very limited area for clarification of what more can be done. Would you not accept that some of the issues now raised by the technical experts – and I particularly refer here to labelling, to improved diagnostic tests and so on – are incremental improvements in safety measures for Europe as a whole. They are not a replacement or a supplement needed for the date-based export scheme. If that is the case, would you not further agree that the debate about the safety of British beef ought to be concluded by 10 November next and on Wednesday, if the Commission has no word on that matter, will you bring forward, regrettable as they are, the legal proceedings which are then overdue?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Prodi, as has often been said in this House, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is the end result of genuine democratic cooperation. Representatives from both our own parliament and national parliaments and governments worked on it. This cooperation produced an excellent result, in spite of some misgivings. We might ask whether this model of successful cooperation should be continued in the future? Many of our citizens feel the European Union is distant and bureaucratic. Their distrust of the Union must be taken seriously. We have to pay particular attention to relations between the people and the Union’s institutions. For that reason, I am very glad that the Charter on Fundamental Rights emphasises the principle of transparency, although it could still be put in stronger terms. Despite the demands made here today in this House, it would appear that the Charter is not going to be made legally binding, but is merely to be a political declaration. I use the word ‘merely’, although I believe that, despite its declaratory nature, the EC Court will have to apply the Articles of the Charter in their judicial practices as self-binding principles, with which the interpretation of the court must naturally be in harmony. In this way they will gradually become de facto legally binding legal norms. The Charter is an indication that the Union bears a responsibility for and cares about human rights. For the implementation of human rights to be monitored in practice also, however, the Union must have clear rules regarding possible sanction mechanisms to be used against Member States. At present, the Council is talking about incorporating such mechanisms in Article 7. An agreement on procedures in itself is a good thing, but we must make sure that the system cannot be used as a political weapon. According to ancient Finnish wisdom, you should examine a person first before hitting him. At present I feel there is a danger that if the proposal by the Belgian Government on these sanction mechanisms were to be implemented, we would be hitting first and examining only afterwards. I hope that the sanction mechanisms will be discussed further before the summits at Biarritz and Nice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution which we are about to adopt includes a series of statements on measures needed on the part of the European Union, measures which clearly need to be implemented following this incident. Mr Sylla pointed out that this is not a one-off incident and that problems such as this occur year in year out, which is why I do not intend to go through all these measures again on behalf of our group. We know what the problem is and we have already voted in numerous resolutions on what needs to be done and what needs to be implemented, some of which is already being implemented. I should like to address a different aspect, an aspect which I should like to link to your one minute's silence, Mr President. We honour victims with one minute's silence. These victims deserve not just the honour of our one minute's silence; they also deserve the following consideration: the people who turn to the criminal elements who take money from them to get them to what they see as paradise, are people with hopes. They have hopes for a better life. Generally, it should be said, they have hopes for a better life not for themselves but for their children. They give everything away, all their worldly goods, their property and their hopes. There is a German proverb which says, 'Hope is the last to die'. The people in this container still hoped they would reach their destination until they drew their dying breath. That brings me to another aspect of my thoughts on the subject. The people who gamble on these hopes, the people who take money for these hopes, the corrupt border officials who allowed these people, who were from Kurdistan, to cross our external borders, the criminals who want to capitalise on people's desperation, have also earned one minute of the deepest contempt of which we as a civilised society are capable. I should like to follow on from your one minute's silence by dedicating this contempt to their victims. Their children should know that the perpetrators have the full contempt of the civilised world. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Could I, on behalf of my group, assure the Commissioner that these proposals are welcome and just ask him a couple of questions about them: firstly, could he say more about the consultation programme regarding the candidate countries? It is urgent that those countries which aspire to join the European Union should be perfectly clear about the changing nature of the acquis communautaire and the regulations that they will have to follow. Is there to be a regular process of dialogue in which they will be involved? Secondly, could I ask about the process whereby dangerous products, or products that are deemed to be dangerous, are removed from the market. In this instance, is it the case that it will be possible to speed up the procedure under the rapid reaction process for taking something out of the marketplace once it is perceived to be dangerous? Finally, could I ask him about those products about which many people, including myself, have been in correspondence with him, which are thought to be dangerous but are not so regarded at this stage by the Commission? Flammable furniture would be a case I have in mind. Is there going to be a widening of the area of scrutiny which will take into account products of this sort?

Political group: PSE
I welcome this report. Special action against money laundering was proposed in Tampere in 1999. The European Council, noting that serious forms of crime increasingly have tax and duty aspects, called upon the Members States to provide full mutual legal assistance in the investigation and prosecution of this type of crime and for the approximation of criminal law and procedures on money laundering. It was accepted that the principle of mutual recognition should also apply to pre-trial orders, in particular to those which would enable competent authorities quickly to secure evidence and seize assets, which are easily moveable. Through this initiative the French Presidency proposes the adoption of a framework decision for the approximation of criminal law and procedures on money laundering (e.g. tracing, freezing and confiscating funds). The adoption of this report and the French initiative will undoubtedly assist in the fight against money laundering.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I think Mr Schnellhardt has highlighted the main point. The equipment at issue here – recreational craft and, more importantly, jet skis – is used solely for leisure activities. In other words, it is something our society can do without. If we are to pollute the environment not because society needs to but merely in the pursuit of leisure, then this equipment should be as clean and quiet as possible. It is therefore right and proper that we should want to improve on one or two points in this directive. With all due respect to our rapporteur, this is not about canal boats in Great Britain, it is not about self-build craft which are not marketed. That is not where the problem lies and we have allowed derogations for these craft. The main problem is with sports craft and – I repeat – jet skis in particular, which are produced in large numbers and used on sensitive inland waters, including waters used for relaxation and drinking water supplies. In this respect, we need very strict provisions for these areas in order to transfer the technology which we have already adapted and introduced for other mobile engines – in cars and lorries – to engines for recreational craft. This cannot be done from one day to the next. That much is obvious. We need a certain transitional period here, we are all pragmatists here, and we shall give manufacturers a transitional period. We need to apply the technology, however, so that leisure activities cause the minimum possible exhaust emissions and the minimum possible noise.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am speaking to propose that this Parliament express its condemnation and rejection of the farcical presidential elections which took place in Equatorial Guinea. The lack of democratic guarantees and the obligation for the voters to indicate how they had voted led all the opposition candidates to withdraw their candidatures two hours after the beginning of the false electoral process. As you know, the current government of Teodoro Obiang did not allow the presence of observers from this Parliament nor international observers at these elections and, therefore, we believe that there are ample reasons for expressing a very firm and categorical condemnation of this electoral parody, which reflects the dictatorship suffered by the people of Guinea. Therefore, in the expectation that the plenum will express its opinion, we believe that, by means of its President or whatever channels he deems appropriate, we must express our condemnation of the lamentable electoral farce which took place yesterday. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there are many values dear to the European Union as a whole. Solidarity is one of these. It was thanks to solidarity that the principle of cohesion came to be enshrined in our treaties. According to this principle it is not possible to take any decision that would reinforce the position of stronger citizens, states or regions at the expense of weaker ones. This principle of cohesion has gained further relevance in the context of enlargement. It is worth stating at the outset that the whole House is of the opinion that Objective 1 should remain unchanged, and that regions due to lose Objective 1 status as a result of enlargement should not lose their aid. If these regions were to be deprived of their aid they would be losing out in order to make aid available to the new Member States. Nobody wants that to happen. The statistical effect should not therefore be taken into account so as to retain Objective 1 as it stood. We must all help to support the incoming countries, in a spirit of solidarity. We are currently witnessing a very significant change. Commissioner Barnier is well aware of it. In the draft of the new constitution there are references to economic, social and territorial cohesion. Consequently the question arises as to whether there will be a territorial policy or not. To put this another way, it is necessary to consider whether citizens resident in areas of low population density, mountain or island regions, and who therefore experience difficulty in competing with other Europeans on equal terms are to be covered by a Community territorial policy, regardless of their income. The report I am presenting states that this should be the case. It argues that citizens resident in such areas ought to receive Community aid. This is indeed significant. It is important to bear in mind that when a farmer receives support under the common agricultural policy, that farmer is not required to declare his or her income. Similarly, when a company is awarded aid for research and development it is not required to declare its assets. It is all quite straightforward. The policy on research and development is in place, and so is the common agricultural policy. Aid is granted according to certain regulations. The same should apply to territories. It follows that territories should receive aid regardless of whether they are above or below a specific GDP threshold. I trust this will be the case. Our report on the preparatory work of the Convention is unambiguous. In it we state that policy must not be merely economic, dealing with money. Neither should it be simply a policy on cohesion, intent on avoiding exclusion. It needs to be a policy on territorial cohesion. Mountain regions, regions with low population density and island regions must receive specific aid. I am confident that the Council, the Commission and the Commissioner will heed the report by this House rather than the report by Mr Sapir.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the same applies to my report. We have to go to Helsinki with this. So, tomorrow, we need to proceed to a final vote. This is the reason why the committee worked so quickly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Nisticò, for his cooperation throughout the process of putting this report together. I would like to add to Mr Lund’s comments that what I find unacceptable is the fact that a compromise discussed between two groups, without the participation of the shadow rapporteurs, at least, of the other, so-called smaller groups, is being presented as a parliamentary compromise. Having said that, the liberal group, which I am representing here, considers that the common position adopted by the Council is an excellent compromise. It takes equal account of the concerns expressed by blood donors, in particular with regard to ethical requirements in the field of donations, and by patients, who are demanding that products derived from plasma be available as needed throughout Europe, as has been amply illustrated by Mr Bowis. In other words, any amendment whose effect might be to threaten this balance would appear to be dangerous, and I would add, in particular, that we believe fighting over the obligation for donations to be entirely without remuneration is a mistake, as making voluntary donations the sole method means favouring one national collection system over another, which would be completely counter to the Treaties. Why must we be forced to choose between the German mixed system, for example, the monopoly of the Red Cross in Belgium, or even the French system, which, since the tragic contaminated blood affair, has set up an effective blood monitoring system which many Member States now use as a model? That is not the key issue. The most important thing, and we would stress this, is to promote the highest possible quality and safety standards for donations of blood and blood components, and it is not by extolling the virtues of obligatorily entirely unpaid donations, I repeat, or by proposing assimilation – thus far scientifically unfounded on grounds of both ethics and quality, as stated by Amendments Nos 7 and 10 adopted in committee and Amendment No 26 – that we will be laying down proper foundations for the future of the blood sector in Europe and providing a practical, sustainable solution to the question of self-sufficiency. The liberal group will therefore vote against these amendments. Yes, of course you must listen to voluntary blood donors. Of course their contribution is priceless. But you must also listen to patients when they tell you that no one with haemophilia or primary immune deficiency will inject plasma products that are untreated or of uncertain quality just because they come from voluntary donors. The message we must send here and now to donors and recipients is one of generosity and solidarity. We believe it is unproductive to set their points of view against each other. The main threat to the blood sector and the lives of patients lies in the lack of medicinal products derived from plasma. It is in accepting this reality and accepting all healthy donors without excluding anybody that the battle for self-sufficiency will one day be won in Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the post and the postal services are indeed not just any old commodity and not any old service; they are, rather a very sensitive article, one that also needs to be handled with care. In the first round, the Commission did not, I think, comply with this request which had been addressed by Parliament, and the Common Position with the Council is, I think, a good compromise, which does justice to both the public interest and also to the interests of the people and employees it affects. Faced with the scepticism that has been expressed, we also need to articulate clearly what we are voting on this week. It is only from 2006 onwards that things will get exciting. We then want the Commission to inform us how the universal service is to be financed. There is no blank cheque; instead we are getting a study. There is no automatic behaviour here; instead we want to know in the most exact terms – for that is the crucial thing – whether, as for example Mr Mastorakis put it, people in rural areas on islands are to continue to get a good postal service. That will be the case only in 2006. I thank the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, as I think he has brought the various Parliamentary interests and the Council together, so that this week, I believe, we can manage to get a good majority for a good compromise. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, two different types of argument have been put forward for this directive. The first concerns public health, the second harmonisation of the internal market. I consider that the public health arguments are weak. There is no major public health problem from people overdosing on vitamins and minerals. Nor will the risk of overdose disappear with this directive. If we really want to make a vigorous contribution to public health, we should possibly address the subjects of alcohol, tobacco or something else rather than the area covered by this directive. The fact is too that the EU is not allowed to introduce harmonisation on public health issues. This is clearly stated by the Treaties. There is also a risk that consumers who use certain dosages of particular preparations will find this more difficult once this directive has entered into force. The real motivation behind the directive is harmonisation, in other words the opportunity to be free to sell everywhere. This is not a strong argument in my opinion. In my view, sometimes other considerations must be more important than a free market. I consider that, in areas such as this, different EU countries should be allowed to have different rules – more liberal or more restrictive – depending on the wishes of the voters. I consider that supranational rules should only be used to combat real supranational common problems. This is not the case here. We have witnessed a furious and quite unpleasant lobbying campaign. Its methods and its content have been counter-productive. Several of the arguments put forward against the proposal have been exaggerated and sometimes also incorrect. Parts of this proposal are positive, such as the requirement for declarations of contents. On the whole, there are, however, no strong arguments for implementing the far-reaching harmonisation proposed. There is also a risk that the system which has been drawn up will benefit major industrial interests at the expense of small enterprises. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL