GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to thank all those who have fought so hard. My personal thanks go in particular to Mrs Pack, who has been the driving force behind the fight for our cause in the Conciliation Committee. In Germany we have a proverb which says that you live and learn. I am glad that a few years ago this concept was enshrined in the policy: now we call it lifelong learning. The importance of education, whether it be quantitative or qualitative, general or subject-specific, is sufficiently well known to us all. We are also now laying the foundation stones for the future of Europe. In my opinion, Socrates is one of the most important building blocks. I only need to mention mobility and European educational policy. With your permission, I will draw your attention to one module which caters for cultural diversity: Action 4 or 'Lingua'. Here, I should like to place particular emphasis on less widely spoken and less widely taught languages. I call on the Council to take on this responsibility and not to confine its support for attractive policies of culture or lifelong learning to election campaigns, but to assume full responsibility for this task.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I have to admit that I am speaking on behalf of a significant minority within our group. The drugs situation in Europe is becoming worse and worse. The fact that our borders are becoming ever more open is basically something to be welcomed, of course, but the downside of this is that smuggling, including drug smuggling, is on the increase. I am concerned that it looks as if more and more countries are abandoning clear and explicit restrictive attitudes to drug abuse. Our objective must be nothing other than a drugs-free Europe. Giving up that objective would be tantamount to leaving thousands of young people in the lurch. Mr President, I am well aware of Mr Oostlander’s problems in arriving at a balanced view. In general, I think he has succeeded. I welcome the more restrictive tone he has adopted here today, but there are wordings I do not agree with. What is absolutely clear is that the amendments are along completely the wrong lines. To embrace a permissive attitude towards so-called soft drugs would be devastating. We know that these are the gateway to heavy drug abuse. We Swedish Liberals, and a large proportion of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party in general, will vote against all attempts to relax the strict and clear policy on drugs. We reject Amendments Nos 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 37. We are able to accept Amendments Nos 32 and 36.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, before the war, during the war, and today, after the war in Iraq, Parliament has faithfully analysed the situation and expressed its views. Unfortunately, these views have differed, but that is the way things are: the European Union is divided. Today’s debate therefore allows us all to reaffirm our principles. Mine have not changed. I wholly condemn Saddam Hussein’s regime, but I fear that the way in which the United States brought it down has created a situation which is, if not equally horrific, at least as unmanageable. I do not endorse wars that are decided upon unilaterally. I believe the role of international organisations must be reaffirmed, particularly the role of the UN, not only in approving the use of force but also in supervising reconstruction. Reaffirming principles is a good start but it is not enough. Rebuilding after destroying is a duty, including for those who in no way participated in the destruction. Yet this is still not enough. We must also do everything in our power to understand why and how Europeans as well as Europeans and Americans have become so divided. We must do everything in our power to rebuild our union, not just around a table but in our minds too. This means that we must work flat out to agree on a vision of the world or, at least, to achieve converging visions on major problems such as transatlantic relations, the role and reforms of international organisations, the role of the law and of force, and so on. These are difficult subjects and are sometimes even taboo subjects. These efforts to achieve mutual understanding and clarification of ideas by seeking consensus whenever possible, however, are utterly essential for us after the blow we have been dealt. It is absolutely vital to rebuild Iraq and to save human lives. Nonetheless, we must also rebuild, or rather build, a common vision of the world and our responsibilities in the world. The Greek Presidency has endeavoured to begin this work, but we have a long, long way to go.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will just mention five points in the short time available to me. Firstly, I welcome the Convention. It is not a constituent assembly but it is all we could realistically achieve. Secondly, we need to be careful not to undervalue or trivialise the term ‘European Constitution’, and the members of the Convention need to be courageous and innovative in their role. Thirdly, federalism must not be a matter just for the States and the European Union, with the basic regional and local levels and linguistic and national minorities being excluded. Fourthly, with regard to the method, Commissioner Barnier is right to talk about ‘maximum consensus’. We are not aiming at unanimity on the reforms. Fifthly and lastly: the timetable. We must beware of excessively long delays between the Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference supposed to adopt the European Constitution, for it is an unfortunate fact that enthusiasm for reforms wanes fast.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that, with the change in funding for the European documentation networks and the closure of the documentation departments in the representations in the Member States, which are being merged with the corresponding departments of the European Parliament, there is a problem with informing and updating European citizens. Under no circumstances should information and documentation be downgraded, especially in the run-up to the forthcoming European elections. That is why I am asking you to make sure that their proper functioning is safeguarded for the coming period.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, as rapporteur of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy reporting on Indonesia, I did hesitate for a moment before I tabled this resolution because we will certainly be having a huge debate on the relationship between the European Union and Indonesia in the autumn. However, the situation on the Moluccas is so critical that we need to treat it as an urgent matter. After a few months of peace and quiet in that area, violence has flared up again over the past few weeks, and once again, dozens of people have been killed and once again, thousand of people have fled. The tragedy of the boat filled with refugees travelling from Duma on Halmahera has probably claimed the lives of up to five hundred people. Only yesterday, the Jihad fighters burnt down two housing estates in Ambon. In that area, more than three thousand have now been killed and more than one hundred thousand people have fled. This is a catastrophe and many Moluccan families in the Netherlands are either worried sick or plunged in deep mourning. Madam President, despite this tragedy, I believe we ought to pledge our support to President Wahid and Vice-President Sukarnoputri. It is not they, but the opposition powers working against this government that seem to aggravate the situation within the Moluccas. It seems that the Jihad militiamen are being financed and armed by these groups, and sometimes backed by regional military forces, which are, in fact, supposed to protect the population. In our opinion, however, the Indonesian government should intervene more powerfully in order to protect the Moluccan population. We also believe that international observers, journalists and aid workers should be granted access to the area in order to help the Moluccan citizens. But more than anything, the EU should adopt a clear stance, just as the United States has done, and the EU should step up its aid efforts for the victims. Madam President, our green colleagues have tabled a number of amendments which may have been compiled with the best of intentions but are to my mind counterproductive, because they might be playing into the hands of the powers working against the government, i.e. those who are helping to stage the violent attacks on the Moluccas. I therefore reject the amendment to Article 7 (a) and would ask the MEPs of the other groups to do the same. More than anything, however, the Union should be more pro-active. This is also the thrust of the resolution and I would like a sound response from the European Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I have two brief questions. Firstly, 9 May is also supposed to convince young people in the European Union that their future lies in Euroland. What are you doing, what is the Commission doing, and what are you arranging with the Member States so that a Euro project day takes place in every school before the end of this year? Do you plan to launch a specific initiative here? Secondly,what measures can be taken to help boost consumer confidence and ensure that in terms of consumer protection, there are no grounds to fear price distortions during conversion and a lack of transparency in price calculation? Thirdly, do you intend to continue the Euro information campaign with the Member States at least during the first half of next year, and if so, in what form?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the SNP Members here, Neil MacCormick and myself, have taken a constructive approach to the issue of Common Fisheries Policy reform because we agree that there is dire need for Common Fisheries Policy reform. For that reason, we voted today in favour of improving Mr Jové Peres's text in various ways. Nevertheless, in the end we voted against the overall package because we do not believe that it goes far enough in strengthening guarantees on relative stability, for example, on continuing access restrictions to certain waters and on enforcement issues. Scotland's fishing communities will be demanding that a new Common Fisheries Policy actually does what it is supposed to do, namely that it actually addresses the real management issues in a way which will be effective in terms of conservation and sustainability.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Who wants incredibly noisy aircraft in Europe? Answer: the United States administration, both under Clinton and Bush. From 1 April next, they want to send old, incredibly noisy aircraft with silencers to Europe. Europe had already decided that these aircraft, fitted with a so-called hushkit, should be phased out after 1 April. However, the US Government, which sells high numbers of these hushkits to airline companies in developing countries, has lobbied hard and effectively. Instead of a general ban for the whole of Europe, the European Commission now wants each airport to document the fact that it does not want these noisy aircraft. Of course, if you really want to, you can still stop these wretched old things. But the result will be that an increasing number of these noisy old bangers will move to smaller airports. From London to Manchester, from Maastricht to Bierset. This is something I cannot endorse.

Political group: Verts-ALE
My group supports the recommendation on the ACP/EC Partnership Agreement. We welcome the fact that the EU's relations with the ACP States have, in the meantime, achieved a high level. New areas of cooperation have been opened up by means of direct commercial exchanges under the Cotonou Agreement. This makes it all the more disconcerting that only two of the Fifteen EU States have ratified this Agreement. There is no doubt that the Agreement represents an improvement on its predecessors, because it takes the interests of the ACP States into account to a greater degree, yet we are not dealing here with real parity and equal treatment. It is dishonest of the EU, on the one hand, to demand of the ACP States efforts to develop a self-supporting economy, whilst at the same time using export subsidies to stifle early attempts at doing so. Nor, politically, are the ACP States granted the power of co-decision that is their due. The poorest countries, which need the most support and for which thoroughly worked-out approaches to cooperation and development policy are a necessity, have few if any opportunities to take part in the parliamentary assemblies of the EU and of the ACP States. I see it as particularly regrettable that the EU still has a split – not to say distorted – relationship with Cuba, a Caribbean state in relation to which it lets itself be guided more by American interests than by its own. The Belgian Presidency was keen to break the ice in relations with Cuba and to open up channels for dialogue. In doing this, it worked on the basis of three important considerations: 1. The EU and its Member States must pay closer attention to the situation in Cuba and take note of the facts in an unprejudiced way; 2. Both sides must acknowledge the political, parliamentary and socio-economic differences and mutually accept them in a particular way; 3. We must not go down the road of making excessive demands of each other. Certain demands are being made of Cuba that are not being met in a number of EU States. When Mr Aznar presented the programme for the Spanish Presidency, I regretted the lack of any clear commitment to continue dialogue towards the objective of concluding a partnership agreement between the EU and Cuba, if at all possible before this year is out. I am concerned that the modest progress we have achieved may be brought to nought. Mr Dalmas, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Cuba, with whom representatives of my group had talks in December last year, clearly expressed his country's hopes for a continued and more intensive dialogue with the EU, and its willingness to engage in it. Political experience tells us that it is hard to put a broken thread of conversation together again. Cuba should not be excluded from the ACP process, but constructively involved in its further development through dialogue.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, of course I feel sympathy for the 12 British soldiers captured in Sierra Leone by one of the armed gangs plaguing the country. They, too, are the victims of a policy whose main victim is the people of Sierra Leone. But primarily, that policy is a result of government action, of the action of the UK Government supported by all the major western powers, especially France, and the UN. I find it disgusting that the resolution makes no mention of the United Kingdom’s past and present role in that country. After plundering and exploiting the region, that former colonial power rigged the elections and imposed a government that mainly represents its own interests. Its machinations are one of the main contributing factors in a barbaric civil war in which it is implicated directly, by its diplomacy and by the naval pressure it is exerting, and indirectly by the behaviour on the ground of the troops of its former African colonies, which is just as dreadful as that of the armed gangs. These armed gangs, including the RUF, certainly do not represent the interests of the people of Sierra Leone, in terms either of their methods or their objectives. But, however great their responsibility for the misfortunes of their country, it does not match the cynicism of the British ministers and high dignitaries. To conclude, we will vote against this resolution, which conceals a colonialist policy that is hardly in keeping with today’s world.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Romania has made exceptional progress in recent months. The magnificent efforts by the Prime Minister and his team have created laudable results. NATO membership in Prague this autumn is now a certainty and the impact of that body of work on European Union enlargement will be wholly beneficial. Romania now stands at the crossroads. It is a European nation, yet European standards and our fundamental values are still not fully adhered to by all levels of society. The government's strong fight against corruption is hampered by lack of financial, human and material resources, with the inevitable knock-on effect of a low absorption rate of EU funds. Thus new methods are needed to boost Romania's progress in the coming months after the big bang. We must take new initiatives. It is imperative that the newly emerging political map of Europe, with its plague of unhealthy nationalism, does not threaten Romania's entry into the European Union. If the enlargement window of opportunity starts to close, I urge the Union to lead Romania more swiftly through the narrowing gap of full EU membership so that she is not left languishing on the margins. Romania should be guaranteed early membership even if some of the acquis communautaire is not wholly complete. Surely we can find an entry date with the aim, say, of completing negotiations by the end of 2006. Surely that is within our grasp. Under Ceaucescu, many hundreds of thousands of Romanians showed incredible courage based on their deepest attachment to our core values of truth, freedom and respect for the human dignity of every individual. I recall that in Bucharest in 1990 the main streets were dark, unlit and the only vehicles were driven by the secret police. Last week those same streets were alive and buoyant with a massive international trade with traffic jams, shops and offices, and the bustle of normal life. Romania's bloodless revolution has brought her through into the free world. She still has some way to travel to be with us here today but exceptional efforts surely deserve exceptional responses. I congratulate the Commission, with Romania's people, the primary architects of the country's success, for bringing her to that level of integration today. I look for new thinking and creative achievements in the months ahead to give Romania the tools she needs to finish the job.

Political group: ELDR
The European Commission proposals for the revision of Poseima fall well short of meeting expectations. In view of the good results achieved since it was launched, the profound qualitative change that occurred with the introduction of Article 299(2) of the Treaty on European Union and the successive declarations of intention by various European Councils, one would have hoped for more. This opinion of Parliament therefore takes on greater importance, and it is essential that the Council should accept it in its entirety. I must highlight the proposals made by the rapporteur, Mr Martínez Martínez, either on his own initiative or based on the contributions of several Members, including myself, through the presentation of 20 draft amendments to the Commission’s text, which I am pleased to see included in Parliament’s position, which has been approved by such a substantial majority. Nevertheless, although I voted in favour of Parliament’s position, I must make the following reservations: - I cannot accept that Poseima should remain restricted to the agricultural sector and residually to the fisheries sector; - I cannot accept the ‘principle of budgetary neutrality’ either, which means that the spending levels proposed for the future will be less than at the start of the programme in the early 1990s (still without the article in the Treaty on European Union); - Neither can I accept the nature of the measure proposed to safeguard the principal production of the Azores: milk. I consider the 70 000 additional tonnes allocated to Azorean farmers insufficient and I disagree with the transitional nature of the measure, in force only until 2003, in clear contradiction to Article 299(2) of the Treaty on European Union. I hope, however, that the possible reduction in some measures has been averted, as was apparent in the text of the Commission proposal. In this respect, I must point to the opinion approved by the Committee on Budgets, annexed to the Martínez Martínez report, which addressed all these reservations.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against Mr Atkins’ report because it is totally at odds with the real world and is in keeping with an a priori ideological vision rather than with any concern to meet the real needs of our fellow-citizens and air transport users. We cannot, of course, deny that there is a need to improve the situation of regulation and air traffic control in Europe in the spirit of the single European sky. It is perfectly obvious that the aircraft in our airspace should not be on the receiving end of inconsistent, uncoordinated and complicated handling of their flight plans. And it is true that, although some progress has been made with Eurocontrol, the time has already come to move on to the next phase and to improve the system, bearing in mind one absolute imperative: safety. Regulation and air traffic control must not be subject to the law of competition, but rather to the concept of a general interest service. Moreover, the United States have never liberalised their own air traffic control, as this is managed by a single state agency. That just goes to show! The Atkins report, however, is entirely concerned with the goal of opening the service up to competition, even though it is hard to see exactly how it could be a source of private profit or how the profits made could possibly reflect its performance! The pretext for driving forward this liberalisation, furthermore, is delays in flights. This is certainly a situation that must be remedied, but, in order to be effective, we should really analyse the actual reasons for delays and the real solutions. We should first of all note that there have been positive developments this year as delays have substantially reduced in France. This indicates in the first place that we should make a distinction between temporary disruption (use of airspace by the military for Kosovo, the change in the control system, etc.) and structural problems. We must also measure the problems due to the air companies or the limited European civil airspace with regard to the number of overflights. Air traffic control does not play a very significant part in causing delays, in the final analysis, and, in any case, improvement of the system involves improving the organisation of the coordination of the various Member State control systems, supporting Eurocontrol in this role. This should be the priority and the guidelines on the single European sky. Unfortunately, the Commission does not appear to be on this track, and the Atkins report is even further off the mark.

Political group: PSE