GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, it has been pointed out several times today already, and I can only emphasise it, that the advantages of EU eastward enlargement naturally outweigh the disadvantages and that many will gain from it. But there are also problems and we cannot disregard those problems if, as Mr Walter has just said, we want to take the citizens with us. That is particularly so at the interfaces of enlargement, that is the border regions. Many border regions are already marginal areas with large structural deficits. It is for that reason that we cannot leave those regions alone. That is why, among other things, we have Community action for border regions, which I consider to be a very good instrument. The main section relates to transport. As we also made clear in the Sommer report, we must give regional transport a central place in that. It is not enough only to invest in TENs, because it is not only about ways from Warsaw to Berlin or from Vienna to Prague, but it is also about ways from one small town over here to another small town over there. This brings me to the second key area mentioned in this Community action, namely support for small and medium-sized enterprises. Cross-border trade is a necessary step. There is now a pilot scheme that has at last got going and I hope it will be a great success. But we will only be successful if we simplify the application procedures and if we get better coordination between support instruments, for example between Interreg and PHARE-CBC. I also want to stress here that we do not need any new instruments, but that we should optimise the existing ones. Finally, we must also give some thought to whether we cannot increase the proportion of cofinancing in one corner or another. Instruments like Community Action really have European added value. In border regions, people come together. They may work on one side and live on the other. This is where they can get to know each other and learn from one another. That is why we should do all we can to assist this process.

Political group: PSE
Budget 2000 marks a major turning point in the whole question of funding for Turkey. The Council has introduced the amounts to be used for action to extend the EU-Turkey Customs Union and for the economic and social development of Turkey, but it has not set the usual political criteria which have to be fulfilled nor has it allocated any of the funds to action over the earthquakes. For the first time in years, the amendment of the Committee on Budgets not only approves the Council’s appropriations but actually increases them, thereby making good the cuts the Council had previously made as a result of Kosovo. Also, instead of stipulating the political criteria which the European Parliament had so rigidly laid down, it has simply confined itself in the “Remarks” section to mention of an institutional control mechanism, the actual effectiveness of which, from our experience with the MEDA programme, is somewhat questionable. Unfortunately, the position of the European Parliament benefits neither democratic nor human rights in Turkey, does not encourage a settlement of the Cyprus and Kurdish questions and does not support the tragic victims of the earthquakes in Turkey.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I can tell Mrs Villiers that we should not, at any rate, be saying that we do not know what we are asking for or what we want. It is unfortunate that the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has left us with little of the original draft report – little, that is, that would demand greater transparency of the rating agencies, and require that they be monitored more closely. Now, in the aftermath of global financial scandals ranging from WorldCom to Parmalat, is surely the time for rating agencies to be registered and their practices monitored. In view of Basel II’s recognition of external rating, and of the consequences resulting from it, the message we are giving now to the Commission is not a matter for indifference. This report takes a tolerant view of an oligopoly that is almost impossible to monitor, one that is quite contrary to all the practices of the internal market. Of the hundred largest enterprises in the European Union, 80 are monitored by only three agencies, which should, therefore, be able to do a better job of rating them. The information used to produce an assessment is also important when deciding where to invest. This is where we cannot lag behind current developments in the USA, where, only recently, serious problems resulted in the existing system of rating agency supervision, which is in the hands of the Securities and Exchange Commission, being substantially tightened up. I am sorry to have to tell Mr Katiforis that the signal this own-initiative report sends to the Commission is too moderate and gives us too little cause to hope that we will end up with a trustworthy instrument. I will nonetheless conclude by endorsing his appeal that, in view of the many current uncertainties, we should explore every avenue whereby a European Registration Authority may be established.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must use this debate to protest at the scandalous decision by Michelin to go ahead with 7,500 redundancies when it is experiencing increased profits. I am of course equally disgusted by the plans for lay-offs by Renault-Nissan, by Alsthom, by Rhône-Poulenc, Hoechst Marion Roussel and many other companies. What they have in common is the fact that they are all making considerable profits and are nevertheless sacking workers, or making them redundant, the consequences of which are almost as serious, for every job axed means one more unemployed person. Companies behaving in this way, their customers and their major shareholders are the people mainly responsible for the seriousness of unemployment and for the physical, and even moral poverty that this creates. We think that redundancies by all companies who are making profits should be prohibited, subject to requisition. Favouring the enrichment of a handful of major shareholders whilst forcing tens of thousands of men and women into unemployment and into poverty is a criminal attitude, and I choose my words carefully. Company profits are the result of the work of all its employees; those profits should be used to maintain existing jobs as a matter of priority, and to create new ones, by sharing out the work without reducing wages.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is the third debate on the EU-Mexico agreement and, given that it is the most comprehensive agreement which the European Union has ever concluded with a third country, the principles that mark the sort of cooperation which will be viable in the future should not be thrown to the wind. Both we and the people of Mexico set great store by this agreement. They see it as a chance to correct their one-way dependence on NAFTA. They believe that, in the EU, they have found a partner which stands for democracy, human rights and social and ecological development. Today we have analysed the contract and found that the agreement with the EU not only creates the same sort of relationship as with NAFTA, but that, in parts, it is even worse. Like the rightly failed MAI, freedom of investment, reproduced bilaterally, does nothing to foster a democratically-controlled economy geared to local development. Placing no limit on opening public procurement merely allows large suppliers to swallow up small suppliers all over the world. Provisions such as domestic treatment and bans on conditions cut companies which, for example, prefer to employ women or engage in environmentally sound production, out of the running. The EU has kept derogations open for itself here. Mexico has none! Here is another shortcoming in comparison with NAFTA: the latter has an agreement on employees’ rights with a sanction mechanism, while the EU agreement has not even heard of the Social Pact of the United Nations. However, the opposite applies to trade disputes, for which a dispute settlement mechanism is provided together with the possibility of sanctions. We know from the WTO that environmental laws are regularly sidelined as the result of such disputes. “A free trade agreement at the cost of the Mexicans”. It was under this banner that the Mexican civil society called a few days ago for the Senate to improve the agreement and not to rush into signing it. Some points even contradict the Mexican constitution. “We are not ‘globalphobes’ they write at the end, “but we want globalisation which benefits mankind and a fair world order without social exclusion”. We here in the European Parliament do not oppose an agreement with Mexico. On the contrary! We are unable, however, to vote in favour of this agreement for the reasons stated and must continue to fight for better agreements in the future. One last word: we need a critical voice here in Parliament which continues to support the rightful concerns and demands of Mexican society.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although mood and pessimism put me more on Mr Mulder’s wavelength, I do believe Mr Gemelli and Mr Volcic's suggestions to be very interesting and I can also support them. I do not propose to go over them again. It is, of course, not a very good sign that we are having to put Somalia back on the agenda. It means that there is renewed hostility and that we all are, in fact, extremely anxious about that country ending up in a hopeless war again. This is something we must avoid. The country has now, at least partly, restored peace, and another war situation is thus to be avoided. This is why it is not so helpful that the interim government should call for military interventions. I have no faith in these. We think that other means should be employed. Commissioner, you mooted the idea of a partnership with the local authorities. We can welcome this with open arms, but I should like to add that this should not only be done via Kenya, because in Kenya, it is the men who have all the authority. The women in Somalia have told me that they are the ones who make sure there is food and water available, which is, of course, essential. You will not be insensitive to this, but these women are not in Nairobi. I should also like to ask you to especially consider the refugees. Maybe we ought to ask the Council to stop sending refugees back to Somalia since the situation there is actually not at all safe for a large proportion of the people. Finally, I do not believe we ought to have a unitary system at any price. If we need to start from regional autonomy in order to rebuild the Somali state, I can imagine that a federation may be formed, as was also necessary in Ethiopia. In any case, I think that the emergency aid you are planning to grant will remain necessary in any event, and that Europe must back the peace process with vigour and in a spirit of solidarity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I want to thank the French minister for his answer. I nonetheless believe that the proposal tabled by the French Presidency is completely unacceptable and that it really has only one aim, namely to keep asylum seekers out of the EU, something which may in practice lead to an increase in illegal immigration. It is also the case that it is not only refugees under the Geneva Convention who may be granted asylum but also significantly larger groups. These groups are obviously not excluded under the new proposal. I also asked a specific question concerning the powers of airline and airport employees to make actual decisions on asylum matters. If it is true that those who are regarded as refugees under the Geneva Convention are to be excluded, what actual powers do check-in staff at an airport in Istanbul possess to decide a refugee’s fate, for that is what this issue is about. I think it is a very relevant question because the fate of refugees is being placed in the hands of, for example, airline and airport staff. In my opinion, such staff are not competent and are lacking in training in this area, and it is therefore basically irresponsible to give them this power.

Political group: GUE-NGL
As the amendment concerning the special partnership with Turkey has been rejected, I do not have to explain it in specific terms now. For some of our group, this was a pragmatic step; for others it actually meant another step in the direction of Turkey’s membership, something about which they are still quite pessimistic. As the text has been rejected, however, there is no point in discussing it any further.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I will try and keep to the timetable. Mrs Buitenweg has drawn up an excellent report as a basis for Parliament’s budget next year. My sincerest thanks go to her accordingly. Among the main challenges for the European Parliament are improved administration and increased efficiency. The EU’s forthcoming enlargement will make these especially necessary. Next year, we must prepare for the fact that in 2004 Parliament will grow by more than a hundred members bringing with them a dozen or so new languages. This will make very special demands on the organisation and enhanced effectiveness of the translation and interpreting services. There will also be totally new demands on general administration, which is why it is absolutely necessary to extend Activity Based Budgeting and Activity-Based Management to parliamentary administration also. The other problem is buildings policy. There must be an aim to rationalise the work of Parliament so that buildings expenditure can be cut. Buying property is quite acceptable when money can be saved as a result. On the other hand, we must insist that the Member States that have seats here do all they can to ensure that a swift decision can be taken on settlements in respect of property. It does not do the host country credit if the European Parliament in its territory has inconceivable difficulties trying to establish a rational building policy.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this motion is about three points. Firstly, it is about a man who is threatened with death and whom we must rescue. Secondly, it is about a Dr Aghajari who, in the opinion of many prominent Muslims, is defending true Islam, this great world religion, from political abuse by the extremist forces that are in power in Iran. And thirdly it is about the fate of Iran itself, because in Iran we are now seeing a power struggle between reformers on the one hand, who want gradually to open up this regime, like President Khatami and the aforementioned Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, and darker characters on the other hand whom to compare with the Middle Ages – I should like to make this clear – is an insult to the Middle Ages. These are forces that are unfortunately adherents to a modern, totalitarian form of extremism and that are abusing the great world religion of Islam for their own suppressive and criminal ends. In this context, allow me to say a final word to Mr Markov. Mr Markov, I have expressed criticism of the weakness of the West and of the repression practised by a regime myself in the past, when the SED was still in power in East Berlin, and I have to say that you yourself would have described the words that you have just used as a throwback to the cold war. At that time I certainly thought that democrats should be uncompromising where totalitarian forces were concerned. That was true then, it is true today and it will also be true in the future! (Sustained applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like, on behalf of my group, to thank all the rapporteurs for their good work on the discharge of the General Budget this year, and make just a few comments. We greatly welcome, for example, the way that Mr McCartin's report addressed the issue of export subsidies. We will be giving that more of a cutting edge by means of an amendment, as it is our opinion that the subsidy of live animal transports still leaves too many openings for fraud involving subsidies that make no sense whatever to the EU's taxpayers. We consider this issue to be extremely important, and one where things need to be further tightened up. We will be supporting Mrs Morgan in giving the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs discharge for the last few years but still not for 1996 and 1997. We consider it extremely important that our committee should strongly reiterate that these years saw mismanagement of travel expenses and, even more important, that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs dragged its feet in clearing up this fraud, and that not enough was done to prepare the case for OLAF. This must continue to receive critical attention, and we must strongly reiterate that rather than cloaking the issue in silence. I would also like to express support for Mrs Morgan's demand that the Council be given discharge in the area of foreign and security policy, and also in internal affairs policy, all of which increasingly result in operational expenditure. I am, though, far from satisfied with the way in which the Council has dealt with these matters in the past, and I fear that it will still not give us a satisfactory answer. We must, then, again press home our view that this discharge must be for real. The ‘gentlemen's agreement’ no longer applies. On this point, a definite decision has to be taken. In conclusion, I wish to express my agreement with Mr Kuhne, who spoke before me. If we are to criticise the Council in the course of the discharge procedure, we in this House must handle our own discharge very carefully. The administrative and group budgets should have been separated a long time ago. I wish, though, to urge the Council to at last come to some decisions on the parties, where we in Parliament are not competent to act. We need the Council to at last decide on a party statute, which would be a practical response to public criticism on this point. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, it is my impression that this so-called fuel crisis reveals a number of structural problems which the European Union and the fifteen Member States should be dare to examine in every possible aspect. The first of these problems concerns our relations with the South, in the event the producer countries. Did Europe worry, at the beginning of last year, about the disastrous consequences for the economies and populations of a number of these countries when the price of a barrel of oil fell to less than USD 10? This was hailed as good news when, in fact, the situation was just as worrying as an increase in the price to USD 34. We need to establish a genuine long-term partnership between these countries and ourselves. And then, all the other root causes of the current situation need to be looked at: cases of speculation, the inadequate stocks in the United States and the fall in the value of the euro. The second problem revealed, in my view, by this crisis is the lack of coherence between our strategy choices within the Union. The talk nowadays is of giving priority to rail over road transport and going in for piggybacking. That is basic, a real social choice and an ecologically responsible act in the strongest sense of the term. But for how long has exactly the opposite strategy been adopted, with road transport being pushed hard at the expense of rail? Europe is so little prepared for this development that, today, you still have to change trains between France and Italy because the value of electrical current supply in the two countries are incompatible. The third fundamental problem illustrated spectacularly by this crisis is the extreme difficulty many European leaders have in making an accurate assessment of grass-root demands. They have not seen, or have not wanted to see, the serious problems which this rise in fuel costs presented for people obliged to use their cars or dependent upon domestic fuel oil. Our fellow citizens are not prepared to shoulder the burden of this economic crisis, and they are protesting at the way in which countries have indulged the oil companies, even though the latter have been quite shameless in the profits they have been making. More and more pressure is going to be exerted in favour of a reduction in fuel tax and an appropriate levy on oil companies’ profits. The majority of my group is of the view that the Fifteen ought to take radical environmental measures, effectively promoting rail transport while responding, in the present context, to this legitimate social expectation. In so doing, they would also do Europe what I think is a currently much needed service.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the role of the inspectors appears to be crucial to this debate so perhaps I should spend some time looking at their activities. Many people have claimed that they have been successful so far; I have to say that is not my view. Yes, there has been some success but it really is the tip of the iceberg. On 7 March UNMOVIC published a document entitled 'Unresolved disarmament issues: Iraq's proscribed weapons programme'. That document is 173 pages long and it lists 29 separate sets of unresolved issues; these include the strong presumption that 10 000 litres of anthrax still exist. We also know that a drone has been discovered which is capable of spreading biological and chemical weapons, and we know the cluster bombs have also been discovered. That is not a success. The report is a clear indication that Iraq is in breach of Resolution 1441, it is not fully cooperating with the inspectors, nor is it coming clean. Indeed on 7 March the Iraqi permanent representative to the UN yet again, despite this evidence, claimed Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. Yet despite this evidence, many people here have said the inspections should continue. But for how long? At what point do we say enough is enough? Let us remember that 12 years ago Iraq was given 15 days to disarm. We know the inspectors have only been allowed in because of military pressure, we know that Saddam Hussein is making concessions in order to drag the process out until the summer when war is impossible. We know that it will be impossible to maintain the military pressure in those circumstances indefinitely, and we know therefore that once the threat diminishes Saddam Hussein will be back to his old tricks of obstructing the inspectors. Indeed, only yesterday the U2 spy planes that he gave concessions for were grounded. Is that not a sign of what is to come? Yet we still ask for indefinite inspections, surely that is simply because we do not want to have to make a decision. Commissioner Patten made a very cogent case setting out the dangers of unilateral action; there is very little I can disagree with. What he did not talk about is the future of the UN if we do not take effective action to enforce 12 years of resolutions that have not been followed. If we cannot take effective action to disarm Iraq then the UN is finished as an effective force and the big countries will be acting unilaterally to the detriment of world peace and stability. The future of the world is at stake. We have heard much about ex-presidents, the Pope, academics; they all have one thing in common, they are totally powerless. At this time when the future of the world is at stake, we need honesty, courage, determination and nerve to enable the international community to act together. We must have a second UN resolution, we must have a clear timetable in order to say inspectors can go on for so long but no further. When that happens, then we must prepare to go to war. If we do not we are lost. I am particularly proud of the courage, nerve and clear-sighted vision that have been shown by my party leader and I wish a few more party leaders would do the same. (Applause)

Political group: PSE