GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I shall be listening with interest to Mr Prodi’s response following the comments of Mr Hänsch and Mr Brok, who are very much in agreement on this point. The struggles for power and for the social face of Europe have now really broken out. There is of course a battle between large and small, between technocrats and democrats, between results-orientation and bureaucracy, and everything revolves around the question of who is going to be pulling the strings in the Europe of tomorrow. And with more power for the European Council, as some want, we will of course be breaking the balance between the institutions. That means the triumph of the back-room politics of the big countries, and this will have a paralysing effect. Just look at migration policy – fewer results, less democracy. We can also vote for democracy, however, for a Europe that its citizens can understand – in other words, the Community method, in which the Commission is the elected European government and the premier is chosen by Parliament, the direct representatives of European citizens. This is the best guarantee for small and medium-sized Member States such as the Netherlands that their interests count too. At the same time we can make effective European policy. Consider migration and in particular the Vitorino proposals. Result: democracy and citizens over against this continent's Sun Kings. Aux armes democratiques, President Prodi. And at the same time, the struggle over the choice of whether or not we have a social Europe. Conservative, free-market thinking Europe, even here in the European Parliament, refuses to anchor the European social model as a task in the European constitution. And it is precisely on this that citizens, social organisations and we as social democrats want to do battle, because it goes to the heart of the matter. Are we going to choose a Europe as social protection for our citizens or are we going for the Europe of the free market, which is powerless in the face of globalisation, in which citizens feel alienated and at times of mass redundancies are regarded as disposable items? Once again President Prodi: aux armes democratiques, Commission et citoyens. Convention, seize your opportunity!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mauritania is a vast country and almost 90% of its land is desert. Water is a scarce resource and its 2.2 million people are poor and live in rural areas. It depends on its exports of iron ore and fishing – just two things. I was invited in May of this year to lead a small delegation of MEPs and visit Mauritania, which I did. I spent a week with parliamentarians, all the ministers, President Taya, civil society and NGOs. We travelled up and down the country – a week is a long time to be in Mauritania. Mrs Sudre and Mrs Langenhagen came with me. I was impressed by what President Taya has done over the years in a country as poor as this. I am astonished – and I want to embarrass him and his government, which I shall do at the ACP Conference when their delegates come – that there is now this sad case of locking up the opposition. There is no reason for it, there is no need. He is quite strong, he is quite popular. He has done well. He can do well without locking up his opposition. As far as slavery is concerned, it is actually banned in Islam and Mauritania is a Muslim country. There are Moors, there are blacks and various mixtures of these two. I saw their lifestyle. I did not see any slaves, though that is not to say they are not there. What I shall certainly do is embarrass the government of Mauritania at the ACP Conference to make sure this practice does not continue and the opposition is allowed to operate freely so that there is accountability of the ministers. It is better for the president of the country and the people of the country.

Political group: PPE-DE
The reunification of Europe is an historic opportunity, and Czechs and Germans in particular have the prospect of a rich cultural heritage. I do not regard all the conditions for the Czech Republic's accession to the EU as having been met, my specific concern being the Beneš decrees, which have survived to the present day. Despite these misgivings, which for me are considerable, I have voted to approve the Czech Republic's accession. The young people of Europe share in but one common future – Europe! This is an opportunity that I do not want to deny to the young generation in the Czech Republic. - Gahler recommendation (A5-0090/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we agree that revision of the Television without frontiers directive is urgently needed. Firstly, it is needed because the context in which the televisual market operates, as it has been described, is so different from what it was when the directive was last revised that it does not seem feasible to retain the latter for a further two or three years. As an estimate, we could say that at most, the directive only covers some 50% of the problems currently experienced in the sector. Secondly, revision is required because we need to come up with solutions which were not provided at the time. Television remains the main source of information and entertainment for most Europeans. In my view, apart from the issue of the low quality of content, it is beset by three main problems. Too much advertising is broadcast, with no thought for its suitability or the ages and timings involved. Only rarely are European films broadcast, which is an affront to European culture. The business of digitalising programmes so they can be shown on subscription channels has taken off. Doubtless these problems already existed in 1996, but the situation is now critical. This suggests that although the directive has been successful as far as the free circulation of television services within the Community is concerned, it has failed in other important areas. The Commission’s communication does not allow us to assess the efforts Member States made to redress the situation in the three years under scrutiny. Suffice it to say that three Member States did not even transpose the directive into their legislation. Most probably, the results for the remaining Member States were not identical, but the Commission has not made such a comparative study available. There is little detail on the situation in the candidate countries. This should feature prominently in the new directive. For all these reasons, Mrs Hieronymi has refrained from launching an in-depth debate in her report. I believe she was wise to do so. This debate should take place when the directive is revised, and she has requested such a revision. A number of guidelines to inform the process have been laid down. I should like to refer to just a few of these, namely the urgent need to introduce new services based on new technologies, the need to stimulate and accelerate the transition to digital technology and the coordination of the new directive with the revision of the directive on electronic commerce. The Socialist Group will therefore vote in favour of the report and endorse two amendments tabled by Mrs Junker. Regarding these amendments, I would like to highlight the need for Community legislation to ensure that events or shows of great interest to the citizens should be protected from digitalisation so that they can be made available to all social classes free of charge.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets for this report, I must say that we issued our opinion last June with necessary speed for the multi-annual programme, which covers 2003-2006, to be fulfilled within the scheduled time period, but it was no use because, in view of the dates we are dealing with, it has clearly not been fulfilled. Without getting into an assessment of the main report which, naturally, is the responsibility of the Committee on Development, from a budgetary point of view I would like to say that the new financial framework proposed by the Commission meant an increase of 78% in the new programme in comparison with the previous one, which ended on 31 December 2002, which reflects the importance the Community attaches to this programme with a view to improving the reproductive health of people without sufficient economic resources in the developing countries. The financial framework we voted on in the Committee on Budgets was the one that appeared in the Commission’s preliminary draft budget and which was finally ratified in the 2003 budget. It will not be possible to increase the amount proposed without reducing other policies in the same heading, because the financial ceiling has already been reached. The new Rules of Procedure have already entered into force and we therefore have Rule 63, which says: 'When the committee responsible amends the financial endowment of the act it is considering, it shall request the opinion of the committee responsible for budgetary issues'. This is not trivial. The Committee on Development, for its part, has increased the amount without requesting the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. In turn, at the meeting of coordinators of the Committee on Budgets it was agreed to present an amendment on behalf of that committee to the legislative proposal in order to clarify this issue and re-establish the initial amendment presented in my report. I am aware of the efforts made in the Committee competent for the main report to reach a consensus which would allow it to be approved at first reading and I congratulate them on their work. I am also aware of the thankless role the Committee on Budgets has to play on this issue, since it makes it the final judge of sensitive programmes whose verdict is based strictly on the budgetary framework. And I have already said that I am not going to get into assessing the fundamental aspects of the report. I believe we must be coherent with what we approve on this new regulation and we must use it, because that is what differentiates us from a secondary school assembly. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, for the sake of responsible and coherent parliamentary conduct, I would urge you to vote in favour of the amendments presented on behalf of the Committee on Budgets.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, historians will without doubt say that Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s ‘no’ to war was the stimulus for a genuine European foreign policy. Mr Schröder had the courage to say clearly and directly to President Bush what the vast majority of citizens is thinking. His ‘no’ marks Europe’s emancipation from the Pentagon’s imperialist tendencies. This preventative and solitary war would have been unjust, because, without the authorisation of the United Nations Security Council, it would have caused political difficulties and severe economic setbacks in Europe, it would have alienated the Arab world, it would not have been in the interest of Israel either, as this war would have converted Israel into a fortress perpetually under siege. The most affected, however, would have been the Palestinian people, who are today surrounded, trapped and starving in their vast open-air prison. According to the findings of the Luxembourg Committee for a Just Peace in the Middle East, this war would have exposed the Palestinians to serious dangers. The best case scenario would have been an acute increase in repression; the worst case scenario, which would fulfil Mr Sharon’s ambitions, would be the wholesale movement of populations, the colonisation of the occupied territories and the straightforward annexation of these people by Israel. The preparations for repression were already so far advanced that Mr Sharon sent in the bulldozers, even in the absence of an attack on Iraq. All that the world had to do would have been to turn a blind eye. Mr President, in a few months, the UN inspectors will tell us whether Iraq really does have military weaponry. There will still be time then, and I am speaking to you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to implement, in its entirety, Security Council Resolution 687(91) which emphasises that the disarmament of Iraq is part of an initiative whose goal is to establish in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles. The new world order, proclaimed after the Gulf War by President Bush Snr, has quickly been forgotten.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate all of my fellow Members, who, in my view, have done some excellent work. The European Parliament will have had a great influence on these documents. I would also like to thank the Commissioner, Mrs Loyola de Palacio who, I believe, has worked as quickly as possible within the procedures laid down. Mr Souchet thought that the progress made was slow. I think that he is right. On the other hand, we had reached the end of a parliamentary procedure, which is very difficult to cut down when we embark on conciliation. I therefore believe that we have worked as quickly as possible and yet, it will take a total of three and a half years to draw up a text on Erika I after the law has been transposed by the national governments. All this leads me to make some comments on governance. We discuss this elsewhere, outside the context of transport, and I think that these subjects require the codification of urgent parliamentary procedures that will allow us to proceed legally. I think that this is a proposal which is expected from bodies such as ourselves or which could be drawn up by them. We see that we have the same problem with the tunnels and the revision of the Seveso Directives. Ladies and gentlemen, I think that we must spend time considering the urgent procedures which will be included in the Treaties. I also think that we must ensure that these directives are transposed into national law. We now have a body of texts and of maritime law without equal at European level, and also the Erika II package which is currently under discussion. The Member States will no longer be able to play hide and seek with the European Commission, as they could at the beginning of the Erika I crisis. Furthermore, we have no guarantee – as President Prodi recently said – that the directives are being transposed into national law within the time allowed. And, at the end of the day, if we can be satisfied that we have produced some good European legislation today, we still do not know whether all these measures will be implemented, and within what time scale. The victims of the oil spills and accidents have been waiting for these measures for a long time. Lastly, I think that the controls do not give enough reassurance, and this is true of all the operating provisions. These usually involve self-regulation at national level, and I think that, in terms of governance as well, and if we truly wish to move forward, we must ask ourselves the question of how we are to monitor the monitoring systems.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, I too would like to thank you, Commissioner, for your exhaustive reply. I share your view that substantial progress has been made in the Basle II discussion process so far. Mr Karas, and Mrs Villiers as well, have referred to a number of fundamental problems, especially with regard to the various financing structures in Europe, and we still have a whole range of problems to resolve. You were right to address the problem of internal and external ratings, where we have made progress, but, as you yourself have said, the crediting of securities and the time long-term credits take to be assessed as being of a significantly higher risk are all yet to be discussed in Basle. What emerged from Mrs Villiers' and Mr Karas' question today was important for me to learn, and so I ask you to add to it. There are two points still outstanding. One of them is, as before, how the Commission exerts influence in Basle – if it sees these problems in the same way that we do; I got that from their answer. You have, admittedly, mentioned the Member States – including Spain, the new one – but, at the end of the day, it is we who are the legislators. What matters is that it be made clear there how we envisage transposition. I would like to have a more definite statement from you on that. The second thing that interests me is this. We all hope that, in Basle, all the problems that preoccupy us in the parliamentary process here will be solved. After all, we cannot all take part. What happens, though, if they are not solved? What view, then, for example, does the Commission take of something that has fundamental importance for Austria and Germany, namely, how we assess the value of long-term credits, if this problem is not resolved? That is the question that arises in my mind, and there is still the statement by your colleague Commissioner Bolkestein, who is present here, that a 1:1 transposition is imperative. A statement like that leaves us relatively little room for movement in Basle. What ideas are there circulating within the Commission about the introduction of a degree of flexibility here? At the same time, I would like to add that I would be very interested to know how you envisage the process of transposition. When Basle II is adopted – and you have yourself said that you are aiming for 2005 – it should all happen very fast. What we have heard from the Commission to date is that there will be a framework directive and then appendices to – as it is so elegantly phrased – deal with the technical details, and which will sort out the questions of a system of supervision as well. It will be a very rapid process. I would greatly welcome it if this working party linking Parliament and the Commission could start very soon, in order to get those within Parliament who are interested – and we three from the group of the are very much so – involved in the process in good time and thereby avoid various problems with timescales.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party hopes that it might be possible for Belarus one day to be accepted into the European Community. We hope that the country can introduce democracy, human rights and principles characteristic of a state governed by law. We hope that a market economy will be introduced so that the badly afflicted Belorusian people might experience economic prosperity and dare to believe in the future. Unfortunately, we are an infinitely long way away from realising that vision. The trend is completely in the wrong direction, and it is no exaggeration to say that Lukashenko is an odious Communist dictator. His latest professions of friendship for his fellow dictator, Saddam Hussein are no doubt in keeping with what we know about the Belorusian leader. The list of atrocities in Belarus is endless: imprisoned and disappeared journalists, persecution, maltreatment, torture of opponents, farcical elections, frequent application of the death penalty and no freedom of expression. Moreover, Belarus is both a country of origin and country of transit when it comes to extensive trafficking in women and children, and a vast number of illegal weapons circulate there. Obviously, it is not possible to have any official and formal contacts with the Belorusian regime. Even though I value the idea of a structured dialogue, I wonder how it will be possible for this to take place with the regime in question. However, it is important, just as Commissioner Patten said, to strengthen the limited and courageous opposition that exists: opposition parties, human rights organisations, voluntary organisations and journalists who desperately need our help and who are fighting against extreme odds. This support would be best provided in cooperation with the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the UN. The troika, of which the European Parliament is a part, would also fulfil a very important function. There is cause for taking a gloomy view of developments in Belarus, but let us not for that reason betray the Belorusian people, who have had to put up with a great deal, and let us never stop putting pressure on the regime and the authorities. The forthcoming local elections are something to focus on. My group supports Mr Marset Campos’s very well prepared report and wants to congratulate him on this work.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, an event of such importance for Mexico and Latin America as the presence of the Zapatista commanders and the members of the National Indigenous Congress in the Mexican Congress, with the aim of setting out the reasons for adopting the ‘Cocopa Law’ and the appropriate constitutional reform, should be supported, without any doubt, by the European Parliament. This was the reason why last week three MEPs, Mr Sami Naïr, Mr Gorka Knörr and I were present in Mexico to support this event by our presence. This joint resolution that we are putting forward is positive, important, encouraging and also represents support for the actions of President Fox and the ZNLA. We also think that it goes in the direction of the agreement between the European Union and Mexico to promote a series of greater democratic freedoms and support for the political culture in Mexico, which is very important. We therefore think that this resolution would be improved if two amendments that we propose were accepted: on the one hand, recognising that it is important that the Members from the ZNLA appear in Congress and, on the other hand, inviting representatives of the Zapatista movement to come here, through the delegation for relations with Central America, or also through other committees, such as the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy or the Committee on Development and Cooperation, according to our customs, and to explain their points of view. In that way we can support a great hope for Mexico and Latin America.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the draft constitution rightly contains the constitutionalisation of the Lisbon process, and it really was an achievement for this European Parliament to try and give the European Union a profile that combines economic reform, growth, full employment and social cohesion, and the draft treaty’s underlying values are also evidence of this objective. Regrettably, however, the instruments for achieving these objectives of the European Union are extremely weak. Coordination is mentioned, and rightly so, but precisely because ours is not only a monetary union but also an economic union and a political union, we have given far too little thought to the need to keep in mind not only the interdependence of national economies, but also the social circumstances of our citizens. I very much regret that we find very little in all these areas about how political decisions are to be given democratic legitimacy or that treats this as a priority. That itself is something of a failing in the Convention treaty. But when I hear that the finance ministers are calling on the Intergovernmental Conference to do even less than is contained in the draft, then that is a retrograde step that we in this House cannot allow. And there is something else we must not allow. As the European Parliament, we are quite willing to grant that Parliament does not need to have a say in every technological innovation in areas covered by the codecision procedure, and we are prepared to allow secondary legislation, but only on condition that in this Union committees of experts are not able to cover up and change everything behind closed doors, and for that reason the whole of Article 35 must also be included in the constitutional treaty as it comes out of the Intergovernmental Conference. That is also part of the democratisation of economic and monetary policy.

Political group: PSE