GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, High Representative, I too want to welcome the Commissioner, who will shortly be returning to the Chamber. I wish to start by joining with Mr Poettering in what he said on behalf of his group, and also, on behalf of our group, express our thanks for the success of the policy on the Macedonian issue which the High Representative and the Commissioner conducted last summer. The press is, unfortunately, always full of the things that are not going well in Europe, but when a policy is successful, it is virtually ignored. I want to focus my remarks on the Middle East. I am dismayed by the figures the Commission has published on the destruction recently meted out to projects funded by the European Union. The point here is not the fact that something is being destroyed, but rather the reason why it is being destroyed. The Israeli government is attempting to wreck whatever might become the infrastructure of a future Palestinian state, and that is something we cannot accept. You were saying today, Mr Solana, that what is going on there is not a peace process. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have been saying in this House for a year and a half that we should no longer use the word ‘peace process’. It is a low-intensity war, but a war all the same, and our task is to put a stop to it and attempt to restart what will become a peace process. We are, though, still a long way from doing that. Mr Solana, I fully support your statement that the EU must carry on, for we have no alternative. As has repeatedly been said, though, Israel does not want us as mediators. Perhaps you will again be accepted and welcomed there, with an opportunity we are rarely given to present our policies and our proposals. Are we then to finance projects only to see the Israeli government's tanks destroy them? I also consider the recognition of a Palestinian state to be very important, indeed, as Mr Poettering has said, the only possibility. A President has been elected for this Palestinian state, and that is something Mr Sharon cannot ignore any more than we can. He is the only person we can negotiate with. I do not believe there are many other potential partners in dialogue on the Palestinian side. I regret, Mr Solana, my inability to share even in your modest optimism. For one and a half years, we have been looking on while two utterly unequal opponents wage war on each other. We look on while Israeli tanks destroy Palestinian homes and kill Palestinian civilians and we also watch as Palestinians kill themselves and take equally innocent Israeli citizens with them. It goes without saying that we condemn all violence and every terrorist act without ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. Where, though, does it get us? We achieve no progress by it, and so, Mr Solana, we and the Commission as well, have to think in terms of using the powers we have by reason of the association agreement with Israel, even to the extent of suspending it. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, thank you for the dynamism you have injected into your work. The task of politicians and policy-makers in the field of security measures, in this case in ports and on ships, consists in striking the difficult balance between workability and the desired effect of the intended measures. This is a thankless task from the outset, for the port authorities and shipping companies that are required to apply the new regulations will always experience these as a nuisance. For the legislator, the question does remain whether security in the maritime sector will actually increase as a result of this. So far, this sector has enjoyed a sound reputation where security is concerned. If this were to remain so thanks to this package of legislation, the question is whether we in Europe will receive credit for it. To wait and see is not an option. This is why it is particularly important for this package to be applied promptly, but not at the expense of everything else. I find it strange that we in Europe are going further than what we agreed in the framework of the IMO, especially by also wanting to apply the measures to our local shipping. It is worth noting that America, which forced this package through in the context of IMO, does not do this itself. Why is Europe aiming so high? An administrative burden on our local shipping will lead to goods being transported through Europe with more difficulty. This particularly affects the small ports, with only a few hundred thousand euros in turnover. More obstacles in the transport of goods means that the transport sector, as a rule, will incur additional costs. Additional costs are inefficient, and inefficiency means that the Lisbon objectives are certainly not moving any closer. At that rate, we will never be competitive at an international level. Meanwhile, ships sail up and down the east and west coast of America, carrying goods, without encountering any port authorities or customs officials. In Europe, this will be a different story anyhow, as our internal market does not, unfortunately, apply to our coastal strip. Local shipping between the Netherlands and Belgium does not exist. This is still considered international, but will thus from now on also fall within the internal market. The internal maritime borders should therefore be lifted. Finally, I should like to say that, in general, I will be supporting the amendments tabled by the Group of the . I will withdraw my Amendment 42 because Amendment 65, tabled by the Group of the , is preferable.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, three points. First, enlargement is in fact an historical venture, but for a new Europe, not so that certain factions can rewrite post-war history. Any attempts to do so must be rejected; they are odious, irrespective of whether they emanate from the candidate countries or from members of the Union. I detected a great deal of anxiety in Mr Verheugen's speech; I only hope it will prove to be unfounded. My second point is that we are negotiating with twelve countries. Does that mean Bulgaria and Romania have no further prospects of accession? Will their accession depend at some point on the veto of one of the present candidates? You said, Commissioner, that we have to give them some sort of clear signal, but what exactly? This lack of clarity pains me, as does the fact that nothing has been said about the accession prospects of the rest of the Balkans in the more distant future. My final point concerns Cyprus. The Commissioner has asked for Turkey to exert its influence so that some sort of solution can be found. Who is it supposed to exert this influence on? What a pity Mr de Miguel did not meet the commander of the Turkish forces when he visited the occupied part of Cyprus. He might have been able to tell us more.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Union is now making its biggest political decision ever, because the difference between the new and the current Member States is greater than in previous rounds of enlargement. Hopefully the new countries understand that the Union is not about national objectives, but making progress on the basis of cooperation. It is to be hoped that there will be no attempt to use the Union as a forum for punishing the past injustices of the East or supporting the unilateralism of the West. The European Union will not resolve conflicts through war or by using force, but through negotiation. That we have learnt from our history. The European model differs from Eastern and Western practices in that democracy also embraces civil rights at work, in education and even in the information society. It is also connected with the rights of employees, and consequently, the tripartite model in labour relations should also become standard practice in the new Member States as quickly as possible. The main partners in the enlarged Europe will be the United States of America and Russia. There are political and commercial problems regarding both. Internally we are divided to an unusual degree. When enlargement has taken place, the Constitution will not yet be in effect, decisions will not have been taken on future financial frameworks, and the outgoing Commission will have taken the Council to court. Two thirds of the Members of Parliament will have left even before the Commissioners. Nationalism seems to be on the rise, and the largest Member States are pushing for privileges. If the agreement on the Constitution is not adopted this year, that will become more and more difficult in the years to come. Hopefully, it will not have turned out to be just a self-seeking exercise. Enlargement will nevertheless show that peaceful and equal cooperation is what is most enduring in all circumstances.

Political group: PSE
The situation of Palestine is extremely serious due to the occupation of its land by Israel and the brutal repression of its people by the Israeli army. Since 29 September 2000, the date of Ariel Sharon’s provocative act in the Mosque compound (Haram al-Sharif), the Israeli army of occupation has already caused hundreds of deaths, mostly children and adolescents, injured tens of thousands and arrested hundreds of Palestinians who are fighting to make their right to a have a State a reality. In the escalating aggression, Israel destroys Palestinian houses, continues its policy of occupation and the illegal building of settlements, restricts the free movement of Palestinian communities, drops bombs, sets up road blocks, does not fulfil financial commitments or signed agreements, carries out selective assassinations, invades territories under the administration of the Palestinian authority and attacks Syrian forces in Lebanon, attracting the strongest condemnation. As we all know, Israel has occupied Palestinian territories since 1947. Since 1967, it has occupied Gaza and the West Bank, forcing thousands of Palestinians to live outside their country, a situation which is condemned by the UN and only maintained through the support of the USA and with at least the connivance of the EU. Peace will only be possible when the UN resolutions are fully implemented and the Israeli aggression comes to an end. This means that we should support all serious initiatives so that the Palestinian people can secure their own independent, sovereign state.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wanted to ask: has a vote now been taken on the oral amendment or not, because we have to vote anyway, even if no objection is raised?

Political group: PSE
I voted for the moritorium on weapons using depleted uranium. Ideally I would have preferred a total ban in view of the very high probability that they cause indiscriminate damage to health. I further deplore them on account of their unacceptable impact on the human and natural environment more widely. I particularly wish to register profound concern about the environmental damage that is almost certainly being caused by test firing at the Dundrennan Range on the Solway Firth. These waters already suffer unacceptable levels of radioactive pollution from Sellafield.

Political group: Verts-ALE
In the past, the farming of sea fish seemed to be an absurd measure thought up by companies who were looking for new opportunities to tap into a market that would make them big profits. As the world population continues to grow apace and the seas are being emptied of fish at an alarming rate, it looks as if the farming of sea fish will probably be inevitable. Not in order to tap into a market but as an essential contribution to food supplies. Fishing villages on the coast that have lost their old source of income will probably be happy to join in. This change is not without risks. If we do go down this road, we will need guarantees to prevent accidents and unacceptable situations. Sick and deformed fish in overcrowded cages in coastal zones, in other words a new type of bio–industry, is something we do not want. Genetically modified fish in such cages can escape and irreversibly change all the life in the sea, for example, by wiping out any natural fish that are left. Adding substances that have never been used before to encourage fish to grow fast and thus increase the yield may contribute to further contamination of the sea. It is therefore a good thing that we are paying more attention to information about the consequences, protection of the marine environment and animal welfare which is threatened by this industry.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, only 43 days to go to 1 January 2000. A date which many are looking forward to. But before we can open the champagne with peace of mind at the turn of the millennium, specific European action in the civil and military nuclear sectors is desperately needed. Within the European Union and the United States, the problems have been identified in good time. However, this has been the case to a lesser extent in Central and Eastern Europe. The millennium problem in the nuclear energy sector should primarily be tackled by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This UN organisation is the designated body for worldwide nuclear issues. However, the IAEA has indicated that it has no funding for specific support to solve problems in Central and Eastern European countries. The question remains as to whether these countries are themselves putting enough money into tackling the millennium bug. Russia, in particular, is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Earlier this year, Parliament quizzed the then Commissioner, Mr Van den Broek, concerning the EU’s role in this transnational problem. His reply was that the IAEA has drawn up an inventory of potential problems. I now have three questions for the Commissioner. Firstly, does the Commission have the results of this inventory? If so, I would like to ask the Commissioner to provide an outline thereof. Secondly, is the Commission conducting negotiations with governments in Central and Eastern Europe? What concrete action has ensued therefrom? Thirdly, what is the cost involved to the European Union? I thank you and await your reply.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too am heartened to see that public finances in the countries concerned are sound, but I have noticed that more and more people are becoming nervous about the situation regarding price stability in Europe. They state that, in one of the largest countries – which is also one of the most important countries for the European economy, namely Germany – there is a risk of jumping into something resembling overheating. I should like to hear your assessment of inflationary development in Germany and ask whether you think that inflation in the EU generally is cause for concern.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, the letter sent to you by the prime ministers of Europe’s big three economies, Mr Chirac, Mr Blair and Mr Schröder, makes the spring Council far more important than a merely routine Council following the standard procedure. It makes it a symbol of the unity of Europe, at a time when this unity is being severely tested; perhaps even a symbol of hope. This letter is commendably realistic because it puts the emphasis where it is needed: on industry which, apart from the fact that it generates 25% of total European domestic product, also employs 45 million people; at a time when there is a great deal of talk about services, knowledge and so on, it is worth remembering that the economy has a far more material and palpable basis. It also puts the question of public utility services on the right footing. These services are a necessary basis and a necessary infrastructure for the economy and they must be maintained in the European way, not in ways which could lead to their being broken up, as is the case in certain sectors in the United States. Then there is the whole issue of modernising the markets and not tying companies down in more red tape. That is quite right. And of course, one issue which is extremely important when it comes to unifying the markets is the unification of the financial markets. From this point of view, 2003 is a milestone in the Lisbon programme. We also need to complete the legislation unifying the transport markets; perhaps the Commission could tell us if it is optimistic about at least keeping to this deadline. The prime ministers also emphasise the need for high levels of employment. It is worth remembering that Lisbon talks of full employment, not high levels of employment, and we should stick to our original ambition. Then, of course, there is the question of investments. Where the money is going to come from now that the stock exchanges are falling is a question which needs to be addressed and I hope, Mr President, that the skills of the Greek Government, which has a very distinguished economic staff, will create the optimistic climate without which confidence will crumble and the economy – and hence the Lisbon process – will not progress. This optimism is sorely needed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order I should like to draw the attention of the House to a very serious incident which occurred yesterday in my constituency of Sunderland, in England. A fruit and vegetable wholesaler had his premises raided by police and trading standards officers, who seized the weighing equipment which he used to dispense his produce in the traditional British units of pounds and ounces. Apparently this is now in contravention of an EU directive, although there is a legal doubt about this. I hope the President will join with me in condemning this extremely heavy-handed reaction and write to my constituent offering the full support of the House in his fight against this nonsense. If Members are wondering why the EU is so unpopular in the United Kingdom, it is because of incidents such as this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to begin by again thanking the rapporteur for this very necessary report. I regret that Mr Ford wants to make this a political matter, because I believe this is something on which all political parties could work together for the greater good in order to stop this horrible trade. As we meet here in Strasbourg, great apes, gorillas, chimpanzees and monkeys are all being hunted to extinction for commercial bushmeat. At the current rate, people are paying a premium to eat more great apes each year than are now kept in all the zoos and laboratories of the world. The shocking statistic is that if the slaughter continues at its current pace, the remaining wild apes in Africa will be gone within the next 15 to 50 years – a long time, but it will soon go if we do not stop this trade. I pay tribute to Dr Brian Carroll of Bristol Zoo, in my own region, who has worked with zoos across the UK to collect a stunning half a million signatures as part of the Europe-wide campaign. We are facing a catastrophe that affects both the survival of our closest relatives and the people who rely on forests for their livelihoods. The biggest challenge now facing conservationists is to reduce the demand for bushmeat. It is essential that we maintain an education programme that will keep people from buying and eating great apes through greater understanding and awareness. However, we can do more here in Europe. I am horrified by the scale of this sickening trade every year. Tonnes of bushmeat are confiscated at Europe's airports. We must have stricter controls at all EU ports and airports to stop such meat getting into Europe – witness, colleagues, the devastation caused by foot-and-mouth outbreaks across Europe. We had our own inquiry. Foot-and-mouth is prevalent in parts of western Africa. Smuggled bushmeat could not only spark a new outbreak in Europe, it could also expose our livestock to diseases and epidemics on the African continent. Every kilogram of smuggled meat in the EU food chain poses a real threat not only of animal diseases, but also human ones, such as Ebola. Colleagues, your support for the conclusions of this temporary committee into the outbreak, and its demand for tougher measures to prevent diseases entering the EU was overwhelming, yet in my own country we have only six sniffer dogs to seek out this hideous trade. We are not taking this threat seriously enough and all Member States could do more. Endangered wildlife and habitats are a precious and irreplaceable asset. We must stop this barbaric trade before it is too late.

Political group: PPE-DE
Social and economic development require the completion of important infrastructure works. However, the Commission programme on trans-European networks does not respond to the real need for development for the benefit of the workers and grass roots, to the need to improve their standard of living or to the need for easier communication between peoples. On the contrary, it ties up important national resources, in some countries even almost all public investments, in works selected by big business on the sole criterion of its needs: to increase its profitability and consolidate its position. Sectors and works which safeguard the participation and their subsequent exploitation by private capital are being given priority, while these infrastructures should belong to the people and should be designed to serve their needs. Thus, there are works which are not combined with productive activities, works which damage the environment and works which offer little or nothing to local society. We are opposed to any participation by private capital, especially the exploitation of works by private capital. We believe that the workers must claim public-sector infrastructure works, define their priorities and demand wholly public investments with Community participation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, as a Christian Democrat and Swedish Member of the European Parliament, I am very pleased that the issue of Moldova has been addressed again. Moldova has not succeeded in stabilising its democratic development following the colla of the Soviet Union. As Commissioner Busquin is very well aware, the language issue and cultural identity are sources of division for the Moldovan people as a whole. The issue concerns the place of the Romanian language and of the national Moldovan movement in society, as opposed to that of the Russian language and of leanings towards Russia and the east. We European and Swedish wish to express our support for the opposition in Moldova, which is led by the Christian Democratic Party under Iurie Rosca. We call upon them openly to stand up for a European, democratic and pluralist direction for Moldovan society on the basis of the common values upon which the European Union ultimately rests. What this resolution says about Moldovan democracy not having been stabilised is perfectly true. The situation in Transnistria, which is in practice a breakaway republic, does not make the situation any easier. I believe that the Commission and the European Council should take action to strengthen cultural development in Moldova, so that the country might acquire an independence in which its own language, Moldovan, is given its rightful place. The mass demonstrations conducted in Chisinau in recent years show that the country must be given every support in developing into a pluralist democracy in which the opposition is not suppressed by the country’s Communist leadership. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE