GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, thank you very much Commissioner, you mentioned that we will also require new rules for enlargement, and probably more money too. I would like to ask a couple of questions on the subject of new rules and, as such, on the subject of new ideas. Would it really be feasible, indeed would it also be wise in the future, to largely target the support at one particular area, time and time again? Would it not make more sense to place more emphasis than we have done hitherto on particular project ideas, or else on particularly needy areas? This would also allow us to spend the money in a more targeted way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too regret the fact that Mr Vander Taelen will be leaving us. He has always produced fine, high-quality work with a completely democratic approach. He enjoys cooperating and always works within the consensus. I am genuinely sorry that he will be leaving. I must congratulate the Commission on this attempt to make some changes to the laws on the distribution of European cinematographic works and I welcome some aspects of the communication, to which I shall refer shortly. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned that, yet again, we are seeing some fundamental timidity and I believe that this is due to the fact that the viewing platform, in other words, the place from which we are looking at the cinema and the audiovisual image and where we hope to find competitiveness, is not the right one. For example, I believe that the relationship between culture and industry is not clear-cut. We still see culture as something different, as a world apart, which is subject to subsidiarity, but can we say that digital cinema is only culture? The protection and support measures are still small measures, of limited ambition, despite the fact that many things have been achieved, due in part to Parliament and to Mr Hieronymi: for example, the considerable involvement of the ICB. This is not enough, however. One aspect of this timidity is the way in which the digital world is being dealt with; borders are being dismantled, we are being left without any and projection rooms are being all but eliminated. This is, therefore, a qualitative leap that requires changes in our policies and radical new approaches. I think that the idea that the solution for the digital world could be to support the development of research and the sixth framework programme is appropriate for dealing with an issue that will develop not in four years but in twenty-seven. Joining the digital world means revolutionising our technological system in most cases, providing Europe with a base that will make it stronger and concerning ourselves as soon as possible with the issue of post-production. I believe that we have not yet done so because there is a fear of establishing a relationship between culture and industry, because if we entered the world of the industry we would have to enter the world of competition and we still believe that culture must have barriers. The problem, however, is that we are too late. On the other hand, and in light of this call to speak in modern and contemporary terms and with an understanding of the technological revolution that is going to revolutionise the cultural scene, I should also like to say that the daring and the courageousness of calling outright for the conservation of our audiovisual heritage seem most appropriate. I think that this is a very relevant and courageous move and I welcome it. Furthermore, we must produce a database. It makes perfect sense to acknowledge digital copyright and together to address the possibility of producing a law or a measure that we can all agree on. I still believe, however, that the problems between the world of industry and that of the image cannot be resolved through subsidiarity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, all credit to your consistent approach! It is sometimes helpful in federal systems for their states to be forced to take consistent action in these matters. I have three questions to put to you. Firstly, do feedingstuffs not also have to be checked regularly, and not just the foodstuffs that, as it were, result from them? Secondly, must this not apply particularly to imports from countries in which sprays containing nitrofen continue to be used or where large stocks of them are still available? Thirdly, if you are – as you have hinted – resuming checks for nitrofen, are you working on the assumption that traces of nitrofen will be found in other countries and in the conventional farming sector as well?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, for the magnificent work that she has done as the rapporteur responsible for the budget and for her efforts in dealing with the requests that the various committees have made. As far as the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities is concerned, the final result is not exactly the one that we would have liked. The quantities budgeted are very far below what we had requested, but we accept that this has been a general practice and we therefore accept the result as it stands. This does not mean that in next year’s budget we will not once again be determined to obtain what we think is fairest and most appropriate, and what will enable us to achieve the objectives of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, war is a grave thing. Erasmus said that war is sweet to those who do not know it. I believe we must condemn those who employ hypocrisy, double standards, half truths and total distortions in order to take us to war. It is unacceptable to hear prominent speeches which, rather than promoting a genuine fight against terrorism, that is, against Al Qaida, disseminate fallacies about supposed ideologies of power and domination which are equated with militarism, when at the same time the speaker boasts of having the best army in the world. A little self-analysis on the part of those who accuse the Iraqi dictator of representing a world of constant alarm and chaos would reveal who really represents an ideology of power and domination and who provokes constant alarm in the world. Nevertheless, I believe we should be pleased to see the continuous growth within the Member States of a movement rejecting war, and positions such as that of General Schwarzkopf who, taking the approach of Erasmus, has just accused the Minister for war, Rumsfeld, of undervaluing the army and of relishing the idea of going to war, or such as that of the Democrat Senator Joseph Biden, who has accused Bush of promoting the greatest wave of anti-Americanism for 30 years. Furthermore, the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has just said that he is in favour of peace but that he cannot share the responsibility for backing down in the face of those who threaten our security, freedom and democracy. I believe that, with sophisms of this type, it is we who endanger our freedom, our democracy and our principles and of course our security, because a society which allows lies and distortions in order to dominate the oil market and indulge in strategic whims of an imperialist nature weakens itself in the medium term and thereby jeopardises its cohesion and security.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the result has come about after a whole series of infringements of the law. The provisions of the Rules of Procedure have been infringed on many occasions by the departments and by the majority of the Parliament. Moreover, the result is a black day for the Parliament, because through it, what the majority of the Parliament has decided, the Parliament becomes an authority and the Members officials. I shall, however, not let my own Parliament make me into an official. If I think about it, the fact that the Members of Parliament according to this text are bound to assist in the work of OLAF and if they are moreover obliged to inform on people, then such a rule affects the independent mandate most profoundly. I should like to state that such a decision that destroys the parliamentary system can clearly not be accepted but that we, and not myself alone, but many others too, will submit this matter to the European Court of Justice.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as regards the written text, I believe that I am no longer able to do that, as, firstly, the coordinators and rapporteurs agreed everything verbally, and, secondly, members of the Committee’s secretariat were present, and they will certainly be able to sort this out. I will see to it that this is done.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, the Environment Committee's opinion on this issue was very positive: it was clear that the committee wanted to stand by the position taken by many Members of this Parliament – over 400 Members signed a resolution calling for 8 hours as a maximum overall journey time. In relation to the Commission's proposal, many of the amendments tabled by the Environment Committee were not taken on board in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but I hope the amendments that have been tabled will be supported when the vote takes place. The rest period on the vehicles, for example, is completely impractical. A rest period on a vehicle cannot be considered as a rest period for a number of reasons. Firstly, conditions do not change at all for the animals. It would be very difficult to water and feed those animals unless the vehicle is equipped to make that possible. If that were the case, it would be economically unviable for transporters to have such a vehicle. It is going to be very difficult to look after the animals if the rest period is on the vehicle. How are dead animals going to be removed from the vehicle? There was a recent case in Ireland in relation to Pandora, which said it did not want to transport live animals any more, presumably for economic reasons. They can see it coming in the future. Also, in relation to the continued cycle, the idea of a period of rest on a journey that can continue indefinitely is completely unacceptable. Even the industry does not agree with the rest period on the vehicle. This is one of the key issues that have to be addressed in Parliament this week. In relation to fraud in export refunds – an issue that came up during last night's sitting and in the media recently – one of the ways to avoid that would be to get rid of export refunds. The vast majority of European citizens do not want their money used to subsidise the inhumane transport of animals, which causes untold and unnecessary suffering. I agree with Mr Maat about the provision of local abattoirs. In some places in Germany, mobile abattoirs are provided to slaughter animals if no abattoir is available locally. We must ensure that animals are not subjected to unnecessary suffering, and this is clearly unnecessary. The Environment Committee is strongly of that opinion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly I wish to thank Mrs Thyssen for her gesture and for her defence of the amendment we are presenting. I also wish to thank and highlight the patriotism of Mr Berenguer and Mr Knörr. This patriotism is consistent because ESA 95 was adopted by the Socialist government, to whose party the former belongs. Having said this and leaving aside accusations which are truly libellous at the moment, I would like to defend the idea of an extended transition period of two years. Anybody who knows anything about accounting and who looks at this text with open eyes will know that this implies a profound change in the basic concepts and the data on the resources of the institutional sectors which affect financial companies, non-financial sectors, public administrations and private individuals. This change is a complicated change. As any expert knows, the estimations in accordance with A 95 require breakdowns which affect no less than 60 accounting categories. Secondly, this profound and complex change must be done in a gradual way. As Mrs Thyssen has pointed out, changing and adapting the accounting rules requires a certain amount of time. At the end of the day this would lead to a fair change because a sudden change would prejudice those States which have adopted the criterion of income, in other words, those which have, to a greater extent, complied with the regulation which entered into force in 1999. We are being asked to change a regulation which entered into force a few months ago. The ’s amendment asks for the change to be introduced gradually.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, an unprecedented wave of repression hit Cuba in March and April 2003 under the pretext of the active role played among political opponents by those representing the interests of the US in Havana. Almost 80 civilians were arrested, tried and given very heavy prison sentences, ranging from six to 28 years. Those arrested were tried very quickly: in a matter of weeks – or even days – in the course of trials not open to the public. The defendants were aided by lawyers not belonging to independent bar associations. The conditions of detention of these people raise serious concerns, insofar as the Cuban authorities are providing hardly any information on the matter. Faced with this situation, we urge the Cuban authorities to free these political prisoners and are anxious to remind them that freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Last month, a delegation from Reporters Without Borders, accompanied by relatives of unfairly condemned prisoners, came to protest and call for the help of the European Parliament in fighting to defend freedoms. I am anxious to stress that Cuba has ratified a number of conventions in the area of human rights and I call on the Cuban authorities to respect their undertakings. Cuba cannot, for all that, use the admittedly disastrous consequences of the embargo, which has lasted for more than 40 years, to claim that some of its nationals, described in particular as mercenaries in the service of foreign powers, have had their human rights systematically violated.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, many questions have been asked today and time does not permit me to repeat them, particularly those questions asked by my colleague, Liam Hyland, and indeed colleague De Rossa in relation to the proportionality of the response. Could this outbreak have been prevented? Will consumers lose confidence in our food? Are our rules and regulations concerning animal movement and animal traceability all that they should be? Are farmers' incomes such that they can afford to call out a vet when in doubt and have the European Commission and the national responses been adequate to the challenge? There will be more time for those later. Then there is the complex question of vaccination, even if it is not on the Irish agenda. In the last 18 months, 34 countries have reported outbreaks. To maintain a disease-free status a country has to be free of FMD for at least 12 months, an effective system of surveillance must be in place and all regulatory measures for the prevention and control of FMD must have been implemented. A policy of strategic ring-vaccination around outbreaks may be appropriate in certain circumstances even though we still cannot distinguish commercially between infected and vaccinated animals. I appreciate that the Dutch, for example, have a particular problem about disposing of carcasses so vaccination is for them perhaps an option to ring-fence the disease. I am referring specifically to firebreak vaccination. With the tragedy of FMD following on from BSE and swine fever we must review in a rational way the common agricultural policy. We know that FMD has been around for 400 years so modern farm practices cannot be blamed for this virulent disease, but the mobility of animals today gives rise to greater risk and faster contamination. The general principle should be to ensure that animals are slaughtered as close as possible to the point of production. There are huge economic implications for Ireland from this disease and while farmers are suffering badly, because of restriction of movements and slaughtering, so are other businesses and industries, particularly our tourism and transport sectors. Already we have lost IRL 200 million in tourism receipts since the outbreak of FMD in the UK some weeks ago. Our overseas markets are seriously threatened and we have only one case of it. In conclusion, we are only spending 1% of the 1.2% of GDP currently available. There are other measures that can help compensate sectors generally in terms of our budget.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, pursuant to Rule 130(3), I would like to point out that, every time we vote, we are prepared to systematically breach the Rules of Procedure of this House. Indeed, paragraph 3 states that ‘the President may put the original text to the vote first, or put to the vote before the amendment that departs furthest from the original text an amendment that is closer to the original text’. On the basis of the decision taken yesterday by this Parliament, which annulled a good 350 amendments with an arbitrary act, I would like to ask you what we will vote on if a paragraph in the text had to be deleted, since there is no amendment left. We will have a text that is like a lump of Gruyere, that is full of holes, which can only be closer to the truth given the content of this report. This is, however, an extremely serious further breach of the EP Rules of Procedure that we are being forced to commit – or rather those who will vote will be forced to commit – on the basis of the bad decision, taken yesterday by President Cox, not to give a ruling and to make this Parliament decide to put to the vote the original text, understood as the consolidated text that was put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. That means to say a single voice, that of the left, incorporated its amendments into the original text. This itself is a distortion, to which is added a further one, which I pointed out pursuant to the Rules of Procedure. I would say to my fellow Members – who do not know the ins and outs of this case – that they have one last chance to prevent a serious injustice, a precedent that could become dangerous for the future, by voting to refer this report back to committee or by rejecting it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do believe that you are now giving a very one-sided interpretation of the Rules of Procedure. I have not been an MEP for very long, but I have been around long enough to know that we definitely used to discuss past problems within Member States. The Northern Irish issue springs to mind. A whole series of reports have been written on that subject, and it is therefore not unknown for this House to discuss Member States’ internal problems where the fight against terrorism is concerned. I fully subscribe to the question from the English fellow MEP from the group. Only a dialogue – involving terrorists if necessary – can secure sustainable peace.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, as president of STOA, may I point out that the study to which the honourable Mr Doyle refers has not yet been officially adopted by STOA's plenary. It is on the agenda for the next meeting here in Strasbourg. As you know, this study examined numerous aspects and independent experts were also asked for their opinion, because we want to ensure that the study is reliable and that STOA is reliable. Once STOA's plenary has reached a decision, we shall pass it on so that we can take what I imagine will be the right decision on such an important matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, like Mr Andrews I speak this afternoon as one who regards himself as a friend of the Arab and Islamic world. This resolution can only be supported if recital A and paragraph 1 are regarded as being at its absolute core. We are saying that any relaxation of sanctions must depend upon Iraq respecting United Nations resolutions. In particular we must ask Iraq to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross on tracing the 604 Kuwaiti citizens who disappeared as a result of the illegal Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. If there is to be any EU visit to Iraq it must include a visit to those families in Kuwait who are still waiting to know ten years later what happened to their loved ones. Any weaker position on the part of the EU will not help the people of Iraq, but will condemn them to perpetual tyranny.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think that today we are making history, and that the European Union and the United States are the two leading characters in the play unfolding before our eyes. There is much more to unite us than to divide us. Clearly, however, our opinions do differ in a number of areas. Both the Commission and the Council recognise this. The purpose of the Transatlantic Dialogue is precisely to provide an opportunity to tackle these. We must discuss the Kyoto Protocol, and also the missile shield, which will affect our finances as well as our security. We ought to talk about the death penalty, and consider the issue of drugs too. In tackling this problem we must assume shared responsibility and comply with international law. We must also consider the subject of globalisation, as the Commissioner has mentioned. I think it is incumbent upon the United States and Europe to ensure that the outcome of these discussions proves positive rather than negative. We should also stress the importance of developing trade. We must welcome the initiative taken by the US at the Quebec Summit with a view to creating a free trade area for the Americas. We should be delighted that they reached the conclusion that this trade initiative should have a democratic basis. We have enshrined this in our cooperation agreements with third countries. As was made clear yesterday in the Committee on Foreign Affairs in Mr Patten’s presence, these agreements include a democratic clause and have already been in existence for ten years. Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to pose one single question, and that is whether the Bush Administration is going to continue the Clinton Administration’s practice of exempting European companies from the application of Article III of the Helms-Burton law. I should like to know if this matter is to be discussed at the Transatlantic Summit.

Political group: PPE-DE
Once again the summit has burdened the peoples with the weight of an aggravated anti-grass roots policy. Having attempted to overcome their opposition of secondary importance to the 'Euro-constitution', they turned their attention to the economy and the further development of repression and foreign relations and they did not fail to congratulate the Pope on his 25 years in service to God. As the leaders of the ΕU declared, economic recovery depends on speeding up structural reforms and increasing the flexibility of the labour market, in other words on even harsher conditions of employment for the workers. They also talk of 'modernising' the social protection systems and repeat that the pension systems are threatened by demographic developments, in other words by the increase in average life span. In order to invigorate the monopolies further, they have announced major new projects in transport and telecommunications networks. Again democratic rights are in their line of fire. On the pretext of controlling borders and immigration, they are introducing 'biometric' elements into visas and passports. They are calling for close police and judicial cooperation on the pretext of terrorism. They welcome the US-inspired decision by the UN Security Council on Iraq and have declared that they are ready to contribute to the 'stability' of that country. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL