GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, despite having subscribed to the Mayer Report, I was somewhat surprised by the question put to the Commission, since the prescribed timeframe for carrying out these studies was not respected. What is more, I am convinced that the transition from a Community-wide exhaustion of trademarks to an international exhaustion might have negative effects from both an economic and legal perspective. Neither the NERA study nor that carried out by the Economist Intelligence Unit proved that the international exhaustion of rights system has a significant long-term effect on prices for the consumer. The consumer would not benefit from such a change and I have here an article published recently in the Evening Standard on 4 September, pointing out that Tesco, which is well-known for its support of the international exhaustion of rights system, has not passed on considerable savings made through parallel imports to the consumer. Furthermore, if we wish to adopt international exhaustion, we must amend not only the 1988 Directive, but also the 1993 Regulation establishing the Community trade mark and laying down the rule of Community exhaustion. It would be inconceivable for the international exhaustion to apply to the national trade mark and the Community trade mark to be exempt. A solution of this kind would certainly spell the end of national trade marks which are highly valued by Member States and which are needed by businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, in the frequent cases when a protection throughout EU territory is, in their view, worthless and costly. More than ever in a context of heightened globalisation, we must affirm the economic importance of the European Union by integrating the single market and attaching more value to our creativity. Neither the United States nor Japan has adopted international exhaustion of trade marks. If the European Union unilaterally decided to transfer to this legal system, it would introduce distorted competition between the European Union and third countries. Trademark protection is crucial for the European economy and for consumer safety. A trade mark is the guarantee of a product’s authenticity and quality. Furthermore, the current system allows us to better protect ourselves from counterfeiting; since parallel imports pose a major risk as they use the same channels as pirated products and counterfeits. A question was raised by Mr Mayer, but I, on the other hand, am thinking about another question which I believe to be crucial: why has the European Union not yet signed the Madrid Protocol, which would enable us to provide an integrated, efficient, global and transparent trademark protection system? I am therefore hoping and praying that the European Union will sign this protocol.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the congratulates Mrs Kratsa on her excellent report. I should also like to emphasise that we were pleased with the constructive manner, namely by cooperation between the groups, in which this report came about. We concur with the rapporteur’s view that Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is, politically speaking, of crucial importance for Europe. Not only is this cooperation a safe way of promoting Europe’s economic interests; its key objective is to establish an area of peace, security, stability and welfare. In order to accelerate this cooperation, a better understanding between the European peoples and the peoples of the partner countries is necessary, as well as an active mainstream society which is capable of taking part in this process. In all of this, women occupy a key position. They must be encouraged to acquire their own political identity and for this purpose, they must be given the opportunity, via education and awareness-raising, of making up for an unfair disadvantage that has built up over the centuries. Women must no longer solely be regarded as mothers, no matter how important their role in bringing up children may be. They must also be seen – provided they gain access to education – as fully-fledged partners in the labour market and in politics. With a view to enlargement, women from the South must conclude a solidarity pact with women of the North, and they need to support each other in their justified demands. In this respect, Europe should function as a driving force. Our Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, headed by an inspiring chairperson, Mrs Karamanou, has an important role to play in this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, listening to the spokesperson of the Group of the European People’s Party, I sincerely wonder why we exercise the right of consultation in this matter. Berlin was a step backwards in the field of own resources and, in general, in the field of European solidarity and construction of the political union. Both elements are probably linked, but I would not dare now to state which is the correct order of cause and effect. In any event, Parliament criticised it severely in the Spring. The decision on own resources which we are discussing today, which is merely a translation on the part of the Commission of the European Council’s political decision, is the best evidence of this retrograde step. All the features of the system which may lead to confusion between own resources and national contributions are highlighted. I wonder, by the way, why these national contributions were abrogated in Maastricht. Parliament’s position is to condemn and rule out the application of the so-called principle of fair return to the European budget. Well, Berlin has confirmed that principle, and without daring to admit it, naturally, they have sided with Mrs Thatcher. There was a disputed British rebate, for historic reasons which are becoming less apparent but which are understandable. Berlin maintains it but also offers four small rebates to Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands, which are not exactly the poorest countries in Europe. It increases the already scandalous 10% prima de collection premium to an unspeakable 25%. The only real justification for such an aberration is to lower the Dutch bill, despite the fact that the payment – to use the Council’s terminology – is inflated to the benefit of the Dutch coffers as a result of the Rotterdam effect. And that is what they want to hide. The Commission’s proposal is completely unsatisfactory, as was the Council’s decision. We will only resolve the problems of own resources when we accept that the contributors are not the Member States but the citizens. What is unjust is the fact that two European citizens with an identical income make different contributions because of the mere fact that one lives in Frankfurt and the other in Seville. That is where the injustice lies. Therefore, it should be made clear that the objective must be that the citizens directly shoulder the burden of the Community budget without an opaque system of resources which will mask the process and prevent democratic accountability. Meanwhile, temporary solutions should be aimed at ensuring a certain degree of justice and transparency and not the reverse.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Commissioner. In your response you relied heavily on the economic argument, but we have to say that both nuclear energy and coal are, in fact, heavily subsidised. As Mrs Isler Béguin said, can we see the same level of subsidies – look at the money spent on research in fusion – in renewable energies? To date we do not have level of funding either from the EU or from the Member States. I have two other points. Firstly, do you consider waste incineration a renewable energy, because we need clarification on that? Secondly, where we get industrial profits as an additional source of funding for renewable energy, will we see a level playing field across the board? I would refer you also to the fact – I have said this in other fora – that Director-General Lamoureux has made statements on nuclear energy which vastly exceed the brief of the Commission. It is for the Member States to decide whether they will build or not build nuclear power plants. Will the Commissioner disassociate herself from those comments?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I am last but not least and I hope I shall not take three minutes. On behalf of the Socialist Group, I would welcome the results of the conciliation. The decision to move towards low sulphur diesel across the Union should mean an end to the noisy, smelly, expensive and rather larger diesel engines and other off-road vehicles that disturb our air quality, the peace of our environment and communities. We recognise the importance of taking into account the possible economic and social consequences of this change, in particular for the agricultural industry, and therefore welcome the sensible transition periods given and the encouragement of appropriate tax incentives. We hope this will encourage bringing about change in a painless way. We also support the need for an on-going review of the situation to ensure progress does not give rise to social or economic problems. Therefore, on behalf of the Socialists, I would recommend the report to the House and thank the rapporteur for all the work she has done, as well as all the other people who have been involved in this long process. We hope that we will now see some genuine results from our endeavours.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, as someone with a local government background, I should like to stress the need for local government agencies to become more involved at all levels, particularly when programmes are being formulated and implemented. This is how the required partnership is implemented and integrated, provided of course that the Commission and the state are actively involved. I should also like to stress the need for greater coordination between European regional policy and other Community policies and between the Structural Funds and other funding mechanisms. I should like to use the short time available to me to stress how important it is to uphold the principle of additionality and express the view that, despite the development over time of verification methods, it is impossible to compare Member States on this issue, due to the lack of a common methodology. Thus, we cannot logically adopt a proposal to impose sanctions in cases of non-compliance with this principle until a legal base has been adopted and a common methodology agreed. The principle of additionality must be taken into serious account and I believe that the Member States and the Commission, in the light of forthcoming enlargement, will have to work together to draw up and adopt guidelines defining a more integrated approach to verifying the application of this principle, taking into account, of course, the particular economic situation in each Member State. In closing, I feel I must congratulate the rapporteur on his comprehensive report and stress the fact that on the whole, the implementation of the programmes financed by the various funds was on the right track in 1998, the year covered by the report and a good year overall, in which the relative delays of previous years were recouped. Only when it came to monitoring interventions was 1998 a poor year. There seems to be a problem with this generally, perhaps due to a lack of staff, and the Commission must ensure that it takes the measures needed to ensure that the implementation of European policies continues to be monitored.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it is unfortunate that we have had to make substantial alterations to the Souchet and Nogueira reports. The whole scenario is depressing enough already: here we are, sitting in a warm room and endlessly talking, not only with each other but often, alas, at odds with each other. Out there, though, our environmental accidents and overfishing are making conditions catastrophic for more and more fish stocks. In here, or so it seems, we prefer to stonewall rather than work on a genuine reform, and the image of the European Union suffers. We should start by sorting out our own environment, and do it at once. The Commission proposals may have been late in landing on the table, but they got there well before the summer. Now that the first snows are falling, we are talking; but it is only today that we are discussing the timetable for the reform, which is due to enter into force on 1 January of next year, which is only a few weeks away. Quite apart from the Gallic bias of its content, this timetable started out as a tall order in linguistic terms. By dint of great efforts and 258 amendments, the Committee on Fisheries was then able to make the timetable readable with a view to genuine reform. It is curious, though, to take one example, that the committee voted to safeguard the twelve nautical mile zone – and now I am supposed to vote against it on Wednesday! That I will not do. Am I a puppet; are we marionettes? Granted, we all want to be re-elected. Is that why the spirits invoked by the Committee on Fisheries have proved so remarkably changeable? We all know that without fish, the fishing industry will die out. What this is about is protecting the fleet and protection of resources, which are fundamental principles; there can be no deviation from them and no softening-up of them. I want the fisheries industry to be economically successful, socially balanced, and to make sense in environmental terms. We have to face reality and cannot set sail in an ever-increasing fleet in search of the mirage of stocks that last for ever. I appeal to my fellow-MEPs to break free of their national interests and support me in maintaining our fish stocks!

Political group: PPE-DE
The voting on this report reflects the EPLP's opposition to incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty and the section of the report restricting unanimity in the Council to constitutional issues. The EPLP has consistently not supported incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as rights are covered by national legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights. Inclusion of new text into the Treaties is likely to create legal confusion. The restriction of unanimity in the Council to constitutional issues would exclude key issues such as taxation and social security which, we believe, should remain the responsibility of Member States. The resolution contains good sections on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Middle East and the EPLP supports the resolution overall.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the report by Pedro Aparicio Sánchez deserves great appreciation and unconditional consensus because, for the first time, it deals critically and constructively with one of the European Union’s most serious and dramatic problems: the preservation of a common cultural heritage unique in human history and the target of depredations and devastation for too many years, often through the culpable indifference of the European authorities appointed to protect it. The debate in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on the implementation of the regulation on the export of cultural goods and the directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State was wide-ranging and exhaustive, although the absence of a direct personal contribution by the Commissioner responsible for culture, Mrs Viviane Reding, was regretted, as were the gaps and inconsistencies in the report from the Directorate-General for Education and Culture. The bitter truth is that the defence of this immense cultural and artistic heritage has been left to the individual national authorities – in my country to one brave carabinieri officer, General Conforti – without any incisive coordination that really works being in place at Community level, thereby at least applying the general principles of the UNESCO Convention. All this is in the face of a massive offensive by organised crime and the shadiest traffic, like money laundering and tax evasion. All this damages the serious and honest antiques trade, a victim of unbridled competition from speculators and the great trading combines. To mention only my own country, Italy, immensely valuable works of art have been stolen, illegally exported or simply vanished: The Nativity by Michelangelo Merisi di Caravaggio, La Madonna dell'Orto by Giovanni Bellini, Ecce Homo by Antonello Da Messina, at least two masterpieces by Cima da Conegliano. Meanwhile the plunder of the archaeological heritage advances at an increasingly rapid pace. These days you only have to go to the Sablon quarter in Brussels to see, impudently displayed in shop windows, dozens of splendid second century oil amphorae, marble bas-reliefs recovered last year – actually last September – from the bottom of the sea by alleged scientific expeditions, almost always from the United States. For these and other pressing reasons Mr Aparicio’s report represents a historic change in direction for Union cultural policy. This first thoughtful document will hopefully be followed by others and acceptance, if belated, of responsibility by the Council and the Commission.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica. The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d'Europe! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, no one is unaware of the loathing felt in this house for the death penalty, wherever it may occur. The European Parliament is continuing its long and dedicated battle against this barbaric punishment, and we know that we have a good ally in Commissioner Patten. Commissioner, we really appreciate your work in this area. Our joint fight has resulted in one applicant country after another abolishing the death penalty. This requirement is irrevocable for membership of the European Community. It is high time that Turkey also abolished the death penalty – without delay. It can sometimes feel hopeless fighting against the death penalty when the world is the way it is. Mr Van den Berg has just mentioned figures showing the worldwide situation. It is important to note that 90 per cent of all executions occur in only four countries. The worst by far is China with over 1 000 executions this year alone. It is also deeply tragic to have to place the US on the same list as the dictatorships. Over and over again, we have appealed to the American leaders to introduce a moratorium on the death penalty and to stop sentencing teenagers and the mentally disabled to death. Just the suspicion that one single person has been falsely executed – and we know this has happened in the US – should be sufficient reason to abolish the death penalty. However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. It is encouraging that there is a certain, albeit slow, shift in opinion in the US. It is also the case that, during the 1990s, 30 countries abolished the death penalty. Here in Strasbourg, a successful conference was held two weeks ago. Both the EU and the European Council will continue to fight tirelessly. In order to further strengthen the fight against the death penalty and to ensure that this issue is always on the agenda, a year ago in this House my colleague Mr Rutelli proposed a European day against the death penalty. We could hold this every year until the death penalty is abolished everywhere. It is encouraging that this is also the view of this House, and I hope that the Council and the Commission can work with the European Parliament to bring about such a day.

Political group: ELDR
The dismantling of agricultural export incentives and barriers to food exports from developing countries mean that the countries in the south can take their rightful place in world trade. However, the interplay between trade, environmental pollution and development which results from EU agricultural policy is often overestimated. Disturbances on agricultural markets affect few products and should therefore be examined for any effect on lasting development. We need to act by pushing ahead on so-called non-trade related concerns during WTO negotiations. The WTO should stop evading the issues of consumer protection, the environment and animal protection standards. This includes implementing the development work of the 15 EU Member States, as formulated on more than one occasion. The decisions taken in Doha (on trade) and Monterrey (on finance) should be examined in detail immediately.

Political group: GUE-NGL
According to Article 23 of the Act of Accession, the European Union can make any amendments to the Act’s provisions on the common agricultural policy that may prove necessary as a result of changes in Community regulations. In other words, the Treaties of Accession, ratified by the ten countries that are to join the European Union on 1 May 2004, may be amended in the agricultural sphere by decisions made by the Fifteen. The result of this adaptation is that the situation, which already discriminates against the enlargement countries in agriculture, is made even worse for them. It should be noted that direct payments to farmers in the enlargement countries were already going to be phased in over time, starting at only 25% of the current Member States’ direct payments in the first year. Now they are also to be subject to the financial discipline mechanisms, which means that they may suffer yet further cuts in agricultural payments. In addition, the new direct payments for energy crops and nuts introduced with the CAP reforms will be covered by the same gradual phasing-in arrangements. These countries will no longer have the opportunity for derogation with regard to the single farm payment, which implies greater discrimination and has already led to objections from the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia and Estonia. This is just one more ... (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL