GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in relation to the last intervention by Mr Harbour, I must tell him that there is not much danger of the ship sinking, since it is travelling very light. I have never seen such a light regulation or proposed regulation as this one. It is so light that we are going to have practically no company harmonisation. As Mr Rothley has said, what we are going to have is fifteen different national laws on the European company, fifteen different European companies and, as Mr Gasòliba i Böhm said, we are going to have more than two hundred possible combinations of different types of company. This is truly the softest type of legislation I have seen in my life. Secondly, the Council intends to take legislative power away from us: Mr Gallagher spoke of acting as legislators. If we take the Council’s route, Parliament will be deprived of all legislative power. I believe that Parliament would probably take the correct route by challenging this decision before the Court of Justice, because the Treaties cannot be unilaterally modified by one Community institution. Thirdly, as Mr Rothley pointed out earlier, the type of European company we are going to create is not going to provide any special advantage, above all any fiscal advantage; if we do not take action in the field of taxation, it is going to be very difficult to bring about the creation of European companies and, therefore, it seems to me very important, as the majority of previous speakers have proposed, that the fiscal field be involved. Mr Harbour spoke of the possibility of the ship sinking. I would say that the danger is that the ship will capsize as a result of a lack of ballast. Mr Harbour probably has some naval experience and he knows that, when a ship carries no weight, the easiest thing is for the ship to capsize and sink for other reasons. Therefore, it seems to me that the important thing at the moment is: first, to insist on Parliament’s legal prerogatives, and, secondly, to insist that in order to have a law on European companies we must also incorporate tax aspects. Without taxation it will be very difficult for us to implement a European economic law, a European company law and a European commercial law.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I will try to express my views succinctly and concentrate on two points. The first relates to the amendment tabled by Mr Blak and the second to an overview of the report we are currently debating. Concerning my first point, I fully support Mr Blak’s amendment. In my view it is in line with the spirit of the EC Treaty. In particular, it accords with Article 276 referred to in Recital A of the report, whereby the Commission will, on request, supply Parliament with all necessary information. The decisive nature of the report makes it difficult to explain why a real restriction has been created in regulating this right to access documents, even though the restriction relates only to confidential documents. I therefore support this amendment. I trust the good offices of the legal services and the relevant committee will re-establish the validity of Article 276 of the Treaty. In my opinion the report before us is excellent. I have already had the opportunity of assessing the document within the Committee on Budgetary Control. I should point out, as the Commissioner has already, that 2000 was a transitional year. Major reforms were drawn up during that year. These reforms are gradually being implemented and we will be able to assess their impact in the years to come. Of the three sections of the report, I would like to draw your attention to that concerning management. I wish to highlight the issue of under expenditure, in particular as this concerns the Structural Funds. I welcome Commissioner Barnier’s initiative to simplify the Regulations in this regard. The current Regulations are one of the causes of under expenditure. The latter is detrimental to citizens’ rights and to the image of the Commission itself. Further, regarding the issue of the recovery of unduly paid funds, I would like to highlight that these are Community funds. The same principle applies to the procedure in which it is clear that Parliament wishes to be involved in the financial management process. Parliament therefore requires all necessary information. As for the fight against fraud, I especially welcome the reference to the European Prosecutor.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur. The European Year of Languages is important and worthwhile. All the languages of Europe are equally valuable and worthy of respect in terms of culture. It could be said that the people who speak the same language share the same mentality. The mother tongue is not merely a tool of communication, it is in fact more than anything else, it is thought itself. Language is the most peaceful way of communicating. Independence is language and language is independence. The Kurds are a nation with no land or borders of their own, kept together only by language. Language is a powerful force. It is the most important bond for a nation. Large countries, and many smaller ones too, often tyrannise others through language. It is a means of occupation. The legislation regarding language in my country is among the most liberal in the world. We have seen how two different foreign languages have twice been proclaimed the official language; only at the beginning of last century did our language, Finnish, become the official one. That is why we have guaranteed the important status of minority languages. The multilingual nature of the European Union is thus a source of wealth. At the same time it is also the right of each citizen in each Member State. The multilingual nature of Europe must be preserved after enlargement too; there are no obstacles to this. It is wrong to think that a multilingual environment is costly and ineffective. Translation is not costly; it is the most effective practical instrument of peace.

Political group: PSE
We agree with the motion for a resolution because it makes an effort to address the acute problems of apiculture. We cannot preclude the possibility that the new generation of insecticides applied mainly using the method of immersing seeds is harmful to the environment and public health, especially when these preparations are used in different countries and after germination in order to combat certain plant enemies, with the result that their residues are greater during blossoming and in the final product. That is why controls should also be carried out of post-germination sprayings so that we can improve our knowledge of how these preparations behave so that suitable measures can be taken to protect the environment and public health.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President of the Commission, Commissioner, Mr Aznar, I ask you not to relax. Your time of glory in the Presidency may have come to an end in the European Union, but your responsibility has not. The media screen of achievements that you have put up does not hide the very serious questions appearing on the horizon. The proposals from your party colleague, Mr Fischler, to reform the common fisheries policy or the CAP are generating uncertainty and concern among our fishermen and farmers. They just need to come into line with our reality, which today is very far from the virtual technocratic reality in the Commission. Now is the time for you to demonstrate the forcefulness of your politics there, here, where our future is being decided. Your greatest achievement in the Spanish Presidency has been your will, your team’s capacity for work. Congratulations! I had never seen so many memorandums presented here, although proportionally the progress has been scarce. You cut the tape for the launch of the euro. Very good. But you underestimated the prior work that had been done by some people. To conclude, your initial proposals on immigration were significantly reduced, thank God, and, to the disappointment of many, the people of Barcelona and Seville behaved and dispelled all of your alarmist predictions with their civic-minded attitude. I therefore formally ask, Mr President, that the European institutions congratulate both cities on their behaviour and civic-mindedness, and on their patience in the face of those expensive and unnecessary displays of power.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to draw Parliament’s attention to the interview – published yesterday – that our President, Mrs Fontaine gave to an Italian newspaper, La Stampa, where she is openly and strongly in favour of state funding for private schools in Italy. Now, at the moment this matter is the subject of a very heated political debate in my country and I think it totally inappropriate, if not intolerable, for our President to side so strongly with one party, given her institutional position, what is more, overlooking the fact that an article of the Italian Constitution talks explicitly about freedom for anybody to open a private school without putting burdens on the State. I would therefore invite the President to take more care, at the time of a political debate in one of the countries of the Union, not to take sides and to respect, or at least take into account the existence of the constitutions in force in the various Member States of the Union.

Political group: PSE
This report on the situation of the Iraqi people eleven years after the Gulf War makes depressing reading and we cannot but share its views. However, it does not even call into question the responsibility of the imperialist powers either for the war itself or for the awful long-term consequences of it for the Iraqi people, a people suffering under the double whammy of a vile dictatorship and punishment by the superpowers. Worse still, the report uses this dictatorship as a pretext for planning and justifying renewed military intervention, just as soon as it is sanctioned by the United Nations. And, as we know, the Iraqi people will be the first to suffer from any such intervention. The humanitarian terms in which this report is couched are an embarrassingly thin and hypocritical disguise for the barbarity of the superpowers and the world order which they impose on people. We voted in favour of the only amendment which opposes this premeditated barbaric warmongering but we rejected the report, which merely seeks to justify it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Fidel Castro said that opposing globalisation is akin to questioning the force of gravity – both are futile. Globalisation is certainly the direction that history is moving in. In an increasingly interdependent world, we can do nothing but support this development which is the only thing that will eventually enable us to create a fairer world, a world where there is more solidarity, a less dangerous world. The problem is that globalisation in its current form can not bring this about. It is asymmetric, limited to a few rare sectors, such as transport, communication and finance and in fact only concerns the OECD countries plus a dozen more or less developing countries, whereas the majority of third world countries remain under-developed. Two-thirds of world trade is carried out between the countries of the ‘triad’, which also absorb the majority of direct foreign investments. The remainder goes to a few large countries, such as China, India, Brazil and sometimes a few others. The majority of the 190 countries of the world are not party to either world trade or international investments. The multinationals are, in fact, not interested in the great majority of developing countries and are particularly disinterested in the least developed countries. However, their integration in the world economy requires, by necessity, more investment and the transfer of technology to allow endogenous development. Such endogenous development sometimes demands protection for emerging industries or services. All the developed countries have experienced periods of protectionism, although protectionism is, in the long run, detrimental to development. The opening up of markets of developing countries and their integration into a truly global economy must be carried out in a strictly ordered manner. First of all, we need internal consolidation in each country, followed by a gradual opening up to the global market. Globalisation, liberalisation and deregulation are not synonymous. Liberalisation calls for new rules – and I agree with Mr Watson on this point – it calls for better rules, particularly for international financial fluctuations. During the second half of the twentieth century, world manufacturing increased six-fold and global trade increased twenty-fold, showing that international trade is necessary for development. Mr President, I see that I am running out of time. I would like to end by emphasising the world’s main concern, namely that of finding a solution to the problem of third world debt. If we do not find a solution for this persistent problem, we will never achieve sustainable development.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the majority of my group will support the supplementary budget tomorrow, but we find it hard to agree to the destruction of two million cattle in Europe. I am afraid that I must take issue with Mrs Haug: the destruction of cattle is indeed an ethical problem and cannot be treated as a market support measure. It is the tangible consequence of a bad agricultural policy: first the support and funding of overproduction, and then the destruction of overproduction. We saw this with the butter mountain, we see it with the milk lakes, and now we have the same problem with beef. What is required is a fundamental shift in our approach to agricultural policy, and I can only appeal to this House to recall its earlier resolutions. For it was the European Parliament which, since 1990, has repeatedly highlighted the problems and called on the Council to set a new policy course. It was this House which took the BSE issue seriously, long before it reached the crisis levels that we see today. So I think it is very important, in this decision, to make it clear to the Commission and the Council that we need codecision rights for Parliament in this area at last, that we need to strengthen Parliament, and that we must finally agree on an agricultural policy reform which translates this concept into reality. We are witnessing a substantial loss of confidence everywhere. Everyone who is currently engaged in an election campaign – as in Baden-Württemberg for example, where the Land parliament elections are imminent – knows that at present, a great many questions are being asked about the European institutions. If we want to address this loss of confidence, if we want to restore confidence, we need fundamental reform. It is simply not enough to muddle through with pragmatic solutions and wait for the next crisis to happen. We need a change of policy course. We must move away from overproduction, the funding of overproduction, and the funding of the destruction of overproduction. Everyone who sits on the Committee on Budgets knows that this agricultural policy is also open to a great deal of abuse. We are aware of the cases which crop up time and again. We know about several cases relating to butter and milk. We urgently need to set a new policy course, and I would like to make it clear that with today's debate and tomorrow's vote, we are sending out a signal that it is time for a fresh approach to agricultural policy. And it is time to restructure the budget so that Parliament has more influence over compulsory expenditure.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, one thing that makes my heart very glad is to hear the last unreconstructed Tory of the seventeenth century agree at last that freedom is a good thing for Ireland. (Laughter and applause) I extend the hand of friendship to Roger. I welcome his conversion. I say to him – because he does not have a great understanding of history – that historically, a ‘Tory’ means somebody who is hunted: ‘tóraidhe’, a hunted one. I am beginning to think that Roger and those of his political party are feeling a little bit that way since last weekend. The tóraidhe were Anglo-Irish people who were expelled from their land on account of their religion. They refused to go and were loyal to the king. I hope that Roger is enlightened now. I certainly hope that we have bridged the gap between us. Edmund Burke, a great British parliamentarian, said: 'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing'. Evil triumphed last weekend, not in the person of those people who went out and mistakenly voted for the wrong side, but of those who told them lies and deceived them. They are the people who cadged money from abroad in the interests of breaking up the solidarity of the people of Europe and spent it to tell lies to the Irish people, while the Irish government – and, unfortunately, the opposition – were so complacent that we thought everybody would trust us. I want the people of this House to know that every major newspaper supported a ‘yes’ for eastern Europe. I want this House to know that a large number of the people who voted ‘no’ believed that they were doing no damage to the interests of the eastern European countries. I have one disagreement with my colleagues Mr Andrews and Mr Gallagher about the generosity and special merits of the people of Ireland. I believe we are different. We have a slightly different culture and a very different history. Yet we are the same as everybody else here. We have good people and bad people. We accept democracy nevertheless, because it is the only way. As the Jacobites said after the Battle of the Boyne, 'Change kings and we will fight you over again', and I believe we will win the next time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to speak about own resources. The tables appended to Mrs Haug’s report and dedicated to the subject of own resources do not give a correct picture of the different share of contributions among the Member States. It has to be said aloud that the United Kingdom is one of the EU members getting a free ride. It has been given a reduction on contributions. It should form part of the report’s conclusions that the United Kingdom should be made to pay its contribution according to the same principles as everyone else. In addition, the report’s statistics disguise the real situation with respect to the customs duties the UK collects on behalf of the EU. But customs duties disguise the share of contributions made by Holland and Belgium still more, as these countries also collect customs duties on goods bound for other countries. Holland and Belgium are not the large net contributors the figures show them to be. The report’s conclusions call for the introduction of a special European tax. This is no mere accident. The country holding the presidency, Belgium, has also announced it will pursue the issue. There are two different opinions on this in our group. The tax is supported by those who are guided by the spirit of European federalism, while those who wish to preserve their national sovereignty are opposed to the EU having the power to levy and collect taxes. Federalism is the making of the European Union into a federal state. If the EU is given the power to levy and collect taxes we will be paving the way for federalism. As a representative of taxpayers in a small net contributor country I cannot endorse European taxation for the purposes of a federal state. Mrs Haug’s conclusion in her report is too radical.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, what I have to say to the Commissioner is far simpler. Very quickly, then, I would like to suggest that other criteria are used for the allocation of funds than just the rate of GDP and of unemployment. Surely other factors such as population concentration and distribution, potential or lack of potential in terms of new technologies and research, and geographical accessibility should be taken into account? And finally, my last question: surely the current situation forces us to contemplate redefining the Financial Perspective before 2006?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed Presidency of the Council, I take a very positive view of the commitment brought, formerly by the Belgian Presidency and now by the Spanish, to this great issue of combating terrorism. The added value of this European Union of ours was also shown by the speed with which the European institutions, in particular the Commission and the Council, responded to the terrorist attack on 11 September with a whole package of measures ranging from the definition of the common offence via the European arrest warrant, to facilities such as joint investigation teams in Europol. This is a very positive response. What is, however, highly problematic about certain areas of this decision-making process is the circumvention of Parliament – of Parliament, which represents the citizens of our European Union and the involvement of which is required by law and Treaty, indeed it must be involved prior to a resolution of the Council rather than afterwards. As this is not the first time this has happened, and since there seems to be method in this approach, I would like to take this opportunity to protest in strong terms. Such modes of action involving circumvention of the Treaty should no longer be tolerated. I wish to add to this the demand that Parliament be in future more involved in the adoption of third pillar measures. The Regulation of 27 December stipulated the persons and groups whose accounts were to be frozen. I would be interested to know whether there is a report evaluating the success or otherwise of this operation, indicating which accounts were actually found and what funds were frozen. I would like to conclude by repeating my demand that Parliament should be involved in an effective way, as this would, on the one hand, enhance efficiency and, on the other, maintain legal certainty. IN THE CHAIR: MR POSTÀVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, although the outcome of this conciliation procedure differs from the Commission’s initial proposal, it is still quite negative. We cannot, therefore, support the text that has been proposed since, in addition to its emphasis on liberalisation, its position on the issues of self-handling and pilotage is far removed from that advocated by Parliament. In fact, on the basis of this position, by means of what is known as ‘self-handling’, the shipping company could provide one or more port services for itself, provided that it uses its own seamen and equipment. Furthermore, the proposal does not stipulate that authorisations shall be compulsory, and the Member States would find it hard to restrict these activities, except in special cases. This situation will cause serious problems for the job stability of port service workers, will hamper the coordination of interactive on-board and on-shore operations and will help to create conflict and a breakdown in solidarity between the established workforce in ports and ships' crews. Safety problems might also arise for facilities and workers, since the seamen might not be familiar with the specific characteristics of the port. Parliament had suggested that pilotage services should be excluded from the scope of the directive, but the conciliation text states that the competent authorities may, for reasons of public safety, recognise the mandatory nature of pilotage and maintain the service themselves or award the service directly to a single provider. This means that pilotage might also be undertaken on a self-handling basis, with the potential consequences for maritime and environmental safety that this entails, and this is something we cannot accept. With the various options given to the Member States for imposing more restrictive rules if they wish, there is a possibility that, in future, we will have ports of convenience, in which everything, or almost everything, is permitted, with the inevitable consequences for competition between ports and for maritime safety itself. Hence our vote against this proposal.

Political group: GUE-NGL