GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Astrid Thors for having completed her work so swiftly and acquired such intimate knowledge of this subject. I wish to mention one or two problems connected with this issue. Firstly, I support the open standard and compatibility: that is only sensible. Access has been conditional in the cable network, which has been spoken about here, but it is also important to have diversity, and not only access. Competition alone does not guarantee it. We know that global competition in the television sector has often led to uniformity of supply: they all compete with the same sort of soap operas. This is a big issue, and it relates to access. In general, I support the notion that technical systems are not neutral. They make some things possible more than others. Thus, for example, the ease of availability of interactive services – which the previous speaker was perhaps speaking about, in a way – is a political question. At least it is a social question, if not a party political one, because, for example, Gallup polls and voting in local elections will depend on interactive facilities, as will the extent to which people can intelligently participate. The MHP, or future Multimedia Home Platform, which transfers facilities from the apparatus to software, is, in a way, the final revolution in this chain, making it possible – as the rapporteur remarked – to receive everything off the television on the Internet, obviously including papers and magazines, films and everything else, perhaps even fragrances, which, for us older men, would be a real pick-me-up. It is important that the correct policy is established here as well: the cost of the equipment must not impede public participation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I support all the statements made on this resolution by other Members, and as the rapporteur appointed by the Committee on External Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to inform Parliament on a possible association agreement with Belarus, I would like to say that I am in no way satisfied with the progress of that country. The visits that we have made with Mr Wiersma, Mr Sacrédeus, Mrs Schröder and other Members to gauge the situation have shown that in Belarus society there is a vast majority and wide range of social, political, cultural and professional forces in favour of democracy and the values of Western Europe, with strong desires to move their position towards the European Union. I therefore think that we have a twofold commitment or challenge with Belarus: on the one hand, to strengthen relations and help the democratic transition to take place quickly and urgently, and on the other hand, to make the necessary diplomatic efforts so that this position of transition towards democracy can also be brought to the fore in Russia and elsewhere. As has already been said, what happened with the OSCE mission is unacceptable. The work done by the former Head of the Mission, Ambassador Hans-Georg Wieck, and by the subsequent heads, has been commendable, and we should therefore continue to exert considerable pressure so that work continues along those lines. Our Group therefore supports this position, in agreement with all of the democratic opposition forces I mentioned, who want a different Belarus.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as has already been mentioned, the problem with this report is that it amounts to a retrospective review of a chapter in the history of the Structural Funds which has long since been closed, during the previous parliamentary term in fact. This looks pretty boring, and the press have already gone home. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the seriousness of the issues involved, as the central point of this discussion should be to learn from the mistakes of the past. In view of the challenge of an enlarged Union, which will in future have 28 or more Member States, we can no longer afford not to use European money for European objectives such as employment, sustainability, environmental protection and equal opportunities in an efficient way. This was simply not the case during the last period. I am emphasising this because I have the impression that the new programmes are once again being approved because of pressure from the Member States, although they do not provide for optimum use of funds in accordance with Europe’s objectives. And this Parliament has been calling for optimum use of funds for years. We cannot afford, as we did in 1998, to spend EUR 30.4 billion only to find that unemployment is increasing again in the poorer regions. I would like to cite an example that underlines my doubts. The Commission is simply not throwing its weight behind the need to make European objectives the real guiding principle of Structural Fund policy. This House called for this report to include a chapter specifically devoted to equal opportunities. The three sentences at the beginning are not enough, we asked for a specific chapter, so that we could monitor this area of EU policy separately and effectively. Equality of opportunities is not just the remit of the ESF, it is the remit of all the Structural Funds. Let me give you another example. Although unemployment is rising in Germany’s five new Länder, money is once again being invested in roads instead of jobs in the new Community support framework. I expect the Commission to drop its “business as usual” approach and instead to become the motor of sustainable development in Europe again.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am sorry but the same problem arises here. The original English text which we discussed speaks of sectarian clashes or words to that effect. In any case the word ‘sectarian’ is used. The German version refers to conflicts between Muslims and Coptic sects. That is a total nonsense and should be corrected in line with the English.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Commissioner, for your answer. I noted your saying it is important, partly in the interests of innovation, to consider relevant markets. We are now in a situation in which the software producers and a large part of the information society may be affected by this matter in the future. At what point does the Commissioner consider that a company may be in an especially dominant position? Will the Commission take account of those profit margins to which public reference is made, namely 85% for certain types of software? When might the Commission be expected to reach that decision on this issue which European consumers are really waiting for?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, whenever a serious social problem occurs, it always has a political basis. This is true of the disgraceful events which have recently occurred in El Ejido. The proof of this lies in the fact that the groups in this House have reacted and tabled several motions for resolutions. We all regret the deaths which have occurred and the violent and disproportionate reactions against the immigrant workers. We all, I believe, agree in our condemnation of the xenophobia and racism which was apparent in certain actions. These events certainly have their origin in, among other factors, the absence of a clear immigration policy allowing the affected communities to live together respectfully and peacefully. We hope that the events in El Ejido will serve as a lesson to everyone and will not be repeated. Yet it is not enough to regret the situation. We do not want Africa to become our cross, in fact quite the contrary. We must therefore act. I should like to highlight certain measures which we are trying to introduce in another European region affected by immigration – the Canary Islands. Firstly we are creating a network of reception centres for minors. Secondly we are conducting a programme of social integration. Thirdly we are carrying out education programmes on tolerance and respect. Finally we are producing a census of immigrants. I hope that these measures will help towards ensuring compliance with the Tampere Agreements on immigration and the new Spanish Act on aliens. In particular they must ensure that people arriving in Europe do not lose their dignity.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the report by the Council starts with a short paragraph on the Constitutional Treaty. There is evidently little progress to report on that score. What we hear is in any case not so positive in a few respects. It appears difficult to enlarge first and only then to focus on depth. We had anticipated this all along. The increasing fixation on the ideal of what is termed national sovereignty and national interest sparks proposals that are mainly focused on the question as to how we can frustrate the decision-making process in Europe. This is the central idea of most of the attempts to change the outcome of the Convention. Some want to maintain veto rights, while others want to reduce the blocking minority and yet others want to structure the Commission in such a way that all objections related to the Council decision-making process return to the Commission. This would render the Commission a weakened body of national prejudice. Finally, with reference to what Mr Karas stated, we are facing all these national referendums which, together, form a very undemocratic decision-making tool, because one small majority in one country can cause the whole of Europe to grind to a halt. If that is democracy, then I do not know. All of this is at odds with the intentions of the founders of European integration. They succeeded in starting this gigantic innovation because of a broad European vision. Had they remained stuck in a mosaic of small-minded, national interests, then Europe would have remained a platform for power games, violent or not, as the case may be. We must continue to call a spade a spade. A Commissioner who fails to prioritise the European interest but represents his own national interests is a corrupt Commissioner who must be brought down. Parliament should not be reduced to a collection of errand boys of Member State governments. After all, we are the direct representatives of the European citizens. It is unfortunate that in some new Member States, leading personalities do not, for demagogic reasons, distinguish between the roles of Brussels and of Soviet Moscow. It is very obvious where the differences lie: participation, free will, and so on. When we were faced with the choice of a free trade zone, personalities of that ilk always emphatically rejected that alternative. We hope that the enlargement, which for a long time was our fondest wish, will considerably reinforce the European idea, for that is its objective. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the dramatic fall from power of President Aristide in Haiti and the undemocratic and increasingly repressive measures by President Chávez of Venezuela to thwart the will of his people to hold a recall referendum represent a worrying trend in Latin America, as Aristide becomes the sixth democratically elected leader in that region to be ousted from power since 1999. We cannot be complacent about Latin America and take the huge achievement of spreading democracy there for granted. The EU must work closely with the US to stabilise this process. Mr Aristide took refuge in Africa, another continent sadly ravaged by civil wars, dictatorships and failed states. This House will welcome the announcement that the EU-inspired African Union, still in its infancy since being founded in 2002, will shortly have its first Pan-African Parliament meeting in Addis Ababa and plans somewhat ambitiously to set up a security council with a standing army to prevent future conflicts on that continent. Will you, Mr President, send this Parliament's greetings and best wishes?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is useful to remind ourselves and to realise that we are in the first round of many of a debate on European security. This means that we have imposed a few restrictions on ourselves. We are very much focusing on the Summit, the European Council of Feira, which is fine, but that means that we will not be covering a number of other issues which are vital to European security. One such issue which we are not discussing today is the criteria for the deployment of this rapid reaction force. I am sure that we will be discussing this issue following a further report by Mrs Lalumière in due course, but in the meantime, we are subject to a few restrictions. Despite these restrictions, we are able to pass a sound verdict now, in my opinion. Let me start by making a positive comment. A large part of the resolution is taken up by non-military crisis management, and this is very much how it should be, in my opinion. The Commissioner spent quite a long time talking about this and I think he had every reason to. According to my group, the EU has unique opportunities in this respect which, so far, have remained for the most part untapped. Fortunately, there are also examples of how things can be done, for example, the Stability Pact, which is a mixture of economic reconstruction, promotion of human rights and the development of a civil society. This is a good example of how, also in future, the Union will be able to use its nearly unlimited options in the field of non-military crisis management. But military resources also form part of this package and, this may surprise some delegates, this is also largely backed by my group, albeit subject to a number of conditions. I would like to specify two. One is the EU’s say. In my opinion, it should be crystal clear, and this is not included in the present texts, that the EU has autonomous power of decision and that the EU countries must be able to decide for themselves on their level of commitment, without needing permission from NATO – or should that be the US? I would like to make one final point. It cannot be the case that the new military resources which are required will be over and above the ones we have at the moment and that, as such, a new arms race would be created for military resources. What is important is that the analysis and security policy are new. This does not necessarily include more resources.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Bradbourn, on behalf of my group, for drafting this report so excellently and with such resolve. There is a vital need to reduce congestion and improve the freight transport system, especially from the point of view of the environment, as the volume of traffic grows. EU enlargement will also bring new challenges, when transportation routes get longer. Our group supports the Marco Polo programme and is satisfied with the Council’s common position. The EU can bring added value by supporting innovative and new technology projects. The aim must be to switch from the forms of transport that cause the most pollution to the other most environmentally friendly forms. No form of transport, however, should be excluded from the programme. A diverse range of transport should also be involved, and that could include road transport too. In my opinion, it is important that, along with the new actions, we are able to support the improvement of existing work. Improvements may often be achieved here through a more efficient cost-benefit ratio rather than by embarking on an entirely new project. By concentrating on just new projects the danger of competition distortions in relation to the old measures is an obvious one. It has been agreed in the common position that minimum thresholds should be halved regarding all categories of action. That would also enable the realisation of innovative projects jointly undertaken by smaller companies, such as SMEs. The programme’s budget is quite modest and the objective very ambitious. I think it is important, however, that the regulation is now approved and that the first projects are got under way by the autumn. In the longer term it is to be hoped that Marco Polo will prove worthwhile and acquire additional financing. In addition we have to explore opportunities to increase financing for important projects that supplement the trans-European transport network.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, what you have just said has given us a lot of comfort and security. However, it gave the impression that the guarantee was only for Members of this House. For us the choice is to come or not; for the staff who work here the choice is somewhat different. I would hope that you could ensure that guarantee extends to everybody. I take your point on the different systems working. Nevertheless, this is such a serious issue. It has been raised in my own group whether the trade unions – the workers' representatives here – were consulted and informed in this important process. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The European Parliament has just taken a great step forward in responding to the wishes of European citizens, who are concerned about the impact of the presence of GMOs in their food. By voting for Mrs Scheele’s report, Parliament has clearly stated its demand for the labelling of all products containing GMOs, including products such as chocolate, for example. The regret, however, that, although animal feed will be labelled, the final product, the meat, will not. That is the only blemish in this report. Although farmers can choose non-GM feed for their livestock, consumers will be unable to determine whether or not their meat comes from GM-fed animals. It is regrettable that Parliament did not follow this legislation to its logical conclusion. Nevertheless, the welcome this move by the European Parliament towards greater comprehensibility, which will enable consumers to choose freely between products that contain GMOs and those that do not.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate is extremely important and responds to the expectations of the citizens, who are calling for greater maritime safety. We Galicians are well aware of the problem, unfortunately, but I sincerely believe that we are moving in the right direction. The Commission has reacted quickly and correctly and we must once again congratulate the Commissioner, Mrs de Palacio, on her proposals. It is now our turn and, fundamentally, the turn of the Council. And I would like to stress the important step we are also taking on the issue of codecision, with the intention from the outset to agree common positions with the Council allowing us to speed up the very necessary entry into force of the legislative rules. I therefore hope that the Council will accept our proposals, and I believe that Parliament must stand firm, as our fellow Members have said, in particular Mr Piecyk. I would therefore like to congratulate our rapporteurs – Mr Pex, Mr Poignant and Mr Di Lello – on their efforts and their contributions to complementing and improving the Commission’s proposals in relation to these indispensable deterrent measures. The sea belongs to all of us, and whoever pollutes must pay the price, whether they do so intentionally or as a result of negligence, including criminal sanctions which could involve prison sentences. And the European Union must offer an example and lead this effective prosecution of offences against the marine environment at world level. We therefore also support measures, such as the preventive seizure of ships, aimed at guaranteeing compliance with the sanctions imposed. We also agree with the proposal in Mr Pex’s report that there must be a common European coastguard service, charged with monitoring one hundred percent compliance with this international and European legislation. This does not imply that we want to replace the national services in the Member States. We are talking about an additional monitoring and coordination measure, as well as a genuine Community system for monitoring the maritime traffic in dangerous goods, by satellite, with black boxes, etc. Another issue which is key to maritime safety, as has been demonstrated, is controls of flags of convenience. We must promote and incentivise European flags, and I therefore also share the opinion in the report by Mr Poignant that European symbols should begin to be used on ships’ flags, as currently happens in the European Union in the case of vehicle registration plates. With these two reports, the European Parliament is allying itself with the Commission and contributing to giving the European Union greater maritime safety and better environmental protection. All we need now, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is for the Council to approve them and for them to enter into force quickly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on 5 December 2000, the Council decided that the granting of State aid of up to 9 per cent to the shipbuilding industry should cease for all Member States at the end of the year 2000. This was for two reasons: State aid had not proved to have had any major effect on the industry’s ability to survive, and there was a conviction on grounds of principle that State aid should be reduced as much as possible and preferably cease. Parliament shared this view as recently as last year. State aid to shipyards is, moreover, contrary to international trade agreements, a fact crystallised by the Commission’s attempt in the autumn of 1999 and the spring of 2000 to reach a negotiated solution with South Korea to the problem of their having violated current trade agreements by providing extensive State aid. Now that that attempt has failed, the Commission is instead tabling a proposal for a so-called temporary defensive mechanism for the shipbuilding industry, involving aid of between 6 and 14 per cent. According to the committee’s proposal, this is to continue right up until the end of 2003, at the same time as dispute settlement proceedings have been instituted before the WTO against South Korea as a result of the latter’s having violated current trade agreements. The reintroduction of extensive State aid within the EU would scarcely increase the prospects of solving the dispute with South Korea. It would make more sense to reject the Commission’s proposal and put every effort into the WTO proceedings against South Korea. In conclusion, I should like to put the following question to Commissioner Bolkestein: how does he think this proposal stands in relation to the EU’s competition policy through which we are trying to minimise, and preferably remove, State aid to industries in order to create fair and healthy competition between companies?

Political group: PPE-DE