GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The existence of patents prevents the unhindered utilisation of every invention which appears to have been devised before. On the one hand, it is beneficial for intellectual property to be protected from profiteers who want to make a quick profit using what has cost others years of effort. On the other hand, patents mean that countries in the developing world are not allowed to produce any medicines themselves to control common tropical diseases and that genetically manipulated plants or animals are introduced onto the market on which inventors’ heirs can raise some kind of tax. Countries with a technological and economic disadvantage can most effectively overcome this disadvantage by ignoring the existence of patent rights. In addition to national patent schemes, the pursuit of a world patent and the existence of a European Patent Bureau which is not subordinate to the EU, there has been talk of a Community patent, which is still controversial within the European Council, for the past 40 years. And, in the final analysis, this proposal only pertains to the languages to be used, with English, French, German, Spanish and Italian being granted a privileged position compared to other official language of the current and future EU Member States. So also in relation to 22 million Dutch speakers and, soon, 40 million Poles. This proposal is thus in all respects not ready for any decision to be taken on it, as a result of which I shall be voting against. - Report McCartin (A5-0103/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to focus my contribution to this debate on the essence of what the proposal means to people in my constituency. This report, and the original proposal behind it, would have grave implications for business and individuals alike. Even though several important derogations were won in committee, the concept of the proposal remains impractical, untenable and unenforceable. This is why, along with a number of colleagues, I have submitted an amendment which would have the Commission proposal rejected in its entirety. Indeed it seems to me that recent times have seen the transport industry being hit hard by piece after piece of excessive legislation. The by-word seems to be: if it moves, regulate it. I have to justify to my constituents the ethics of a report which originally sought to bind road rescue services and public utility vehicles – all absolutely essential to society – to strict new working hours. These requirements about working time prevent professionals from doing their job efficiently by imposing strict terms on when breaks have to be taken. Once again we see Europe hamstringing business rather than liberating it. The introduction of a common range of penalties in particular is worrying. This clearly gives licence to interfere in matters of national sovereignty and national autonomy. Indeed the subsidiarity and extraterritoriality issues apparent in this report are clear examples of the report itself being over-extended. British Conservatives by their very nature oppose such restrictive legislation being piled on business. We believe that this particular piece of legislation is unnecessary, highly excessive and has little relevance to the needs of business and employees alike. It takes no account of the need for flexibility in key areas of transport, pays scant regard to the consumer and seems contemptuous of the need for Europe's industry to remain competitive, a cornerstone of the Lisbon Declaration. I therefore have no hesitation in urging this House to support our key amendment to reject the proposal in its entirety.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Thors for this report and all her work on it. It confirms my already high opinion of her parliamentary talents. She will be a sad loss to this Parliament when she goes back go Finland. Here we have an active and intelligent packaging of a Commission proposal. It has received broad support in our committees and in the responses from the Council and the Commission, which I found to be entirely constructive. If we could do this more often, everybody's life would be simpler. However, there were certain questions that we had to raise. One was the extent to which traceability would be possible. I am glad that Mrs Thors took on board my own amendments. I accept her advice that we should not vote for Amendment No 17. Had she told me to go the other way, I would have done. I believe that the issue of public openness on this matter is one we should take into account. Another point that some of us are slightly concerned about – and it comes up time after time in these debates – is the precise role of the European Food Safety Authority. Time after time the mantra comes up that there will be a reference to EFSA, that it will do this or that. We were due to have heard from the chief executive of EFSA this week. That has been postponed. Where we are moving towards greater food safety, safer food packaging, better labelling and so on, we should not require EFSA to do all the work. Where there is a measure of derogation built into this, all of the Member States seem to be reasonably happy with it. Where the Commission has done a good job, we should move ahead and see how far the existing institutions can do it for themselves. I wish this report well and equally Mrs Thors. I congratulate her on this report.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, you described this report as very wide-ranging and ambitious. I will take these two adjectives as the basis for a number of minor points for reflection. It is certainly wide-ranging – too wide-ranging in terms of the issues addressed. Is it ambitious? It is not ambitious enough in its conclusions, which are limited to a few political objectives – the same objectives as always. Indeed, the rapporteur puts ingredients that are too different and too unrelated into a cocktail shaker in the hope that the result will be a digestible, well-balanced cocktail with an approach that can be submitted for the approval of all the Member States, an approach including shared, common principles on which legislation and positions can be based in the endeavour to guarantee the fundamental rights of all the citizens. Alongside a few principles which we support, for example in the field of combating discrimination and xenophobia, the rapporteur actually includes an undertaking which is too partisan in the section on freedom, going so far as to place in the stocks the police, the legal systems and the media of some – only some, take note – Member States for events connected with street riots caused by the Black Blocks and their supporters in white overalls. The rapporteur has been influenced by bad counsel of the sort we can easily imagine – by partisan and party interests – and has wasted and bungled the opportunity she had to present a serious discussion on human rights, losing herself in empty tirades and gratuitous accusations worthy of a low-profile debate. The judges and police officers of some of the Member States are described as torturers, accused of beating up innocent people. This is a line which is unacceptable as well as out of place in such an important report as this one, just as the family model the rapporteur proposes is entirely unacceptable. It is in line with her own personal beliefs, but it contrasts with the attitude of the vast majority of Europe’s citizens, who certainly do not see homosexual unions and the right to adopt as the ideal formula on which to build the European society of tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
These days, people and goods are travelling ever longer distances. Much too much of this travelling is taking place on the motorway or by air. Travelling by rail is more environmentally friendly, but most of our railway networks date back to an era when we stayed within our own state boundaries much more than we do now. Virtually everyone now agrees on the need for modernisation with trains that can travel on the other side of the border with the same carriages, the same crew, the same voltage and the same safety requirements. This can be achieved quickly by improving cooperation between national railway companies or by merging large-scale and cross-border activities into one single European operation. Regrettably this increase in scale is now being misused to force all the Member States of the European Union to allow other companies with private capital to access the railway network. Liberalisation means that we will only be able to travel where entrepreneurs can expect to make a profit. The additional costs for planning, supervision, safety and infrastructure are being paid by the government, in other words the taxpayer, and the financial benefits go to international companies. This compulsion to liberalise will make it more difficult to guarantee continuity and safety. Despite the European unity that has been achieved, there is currently less cross-border rail traffic in many places than there was in the time before the EU was created. International night trains are being cancelled, long-distance connections are being severed, railway timetables for ‘abroad’ are no longer being issued, boarding bans are being introduced and there will be no railway facilities for the rapid transportation of perishable goods. Even before the compromise of the end of 2000 concerning corridors for goods transportation by other companies comes into effect, attempts are already being made to push through even more far-reaching liberalisation with the aim of putting international goods traffic first, then domestic goods traffic, then international passenger traffic and finally all traffic in the hands of companies that have fewer obligations to society as a whole. In the Netherlands, which wanted to take the lead, liberalisation has resulted in a significant reduction in the quality of train services. Part of the package of four reports that have just been presented will have a detrimental effect on the railway company’s duty of service. If we do not accept that part, the future will look a great deal better.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I regret the vote that took place today. It is a major blow to the public's right to choose alternative forms of medicine, the right to try and avoid relying on pharmaceutical industries and their products. Last night Commissioner Byrne rejected the idea that the pharmaceutical industry had anything to do with this, but I wonder why they are so interested in getting this through if that is not the case? He clearly tried to give the impression that those opposing this were just spokespeople for the industries that produce food supplements. That is not the case. We are clearly in favour of people's right to choose. That right has been taken away from them today. Some Members of this House took a ridiculous approach in saying I should be recommending that people eat more oranges and vegetables. Take the example of pregnant women. They would have to eat a lot of broccoli to get the amount of folic acid they actually need, so such an argument is ridiculous. What has happened here today has played right into the hands of the pharmaceutical industry, which will now have more customers because more people are going to fall ill. It is also an assault on individual Member States' policies. If the Member States do not have a lenient policy in their countries they should change it and not force the rest of us to drag our standards down to theirs.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it has been said that this is a very important, crucial piece of legislation we have before us. It is at the heart of the EU financial services action plan. But, more than that, the bigger prize is that we are able to take forward the Lisbon agenda of creating a competitive, dynamic European economy. For that we need an efficient market in goods, services and capital. Mr Bolkestein, I share your concerns: we cannot afford to risk losing this directive, because the EU economy would pay the opportunity cost for years of not being able to restructure European companies. Yet the amendments tabled by our rapporteur will take us in that direction. I fear it will undermine the effect of corporate restructuring necessary to build that EU competitiveness in global markets. If we are to achieve global excellence in, for example, the telecoms sector, we must ensure that recent take-overs such as Vodafone, Mannesmann, France Telecom, Orange, will show that European models work, cannot be blocked by hostile action or poison pills. That would be turning our back on the opportunity to achieve the competitiveness that we desire. My delegation of Labour MEPs cannot accept, therefore, the changes in Article 9 to allow company boards the right to defensive measures to frustrate takeovers without getting shareholder approval. Mr Bolkestein himself has said that it is crucial that the management of target companies consult shareholders in this case. Our primary objective must be to protect our investors, to ensure a fair and equal bidding process. It must be to ensure efficient flow in capital markets; and we must not end up by producing legislation which protects potentially inefficient managers and props up failing companies. That is in nobody's interest. It will result in investors not seeing the EU as an integrated capital market; it will undermine investor confidence and it will result in capital flow out of Europe. The rapporteur's amendments create confusion in the area of litigation and it would be wrong of us to vote for confusion in potential litigation cases. I have to say that I cannot understand Mr Lehne's approach in the British Economist, where he has himself agreed that his compromise is unworkable, but that he put it in to keep the s happy and he is prepared to take it out in conciliation. That is not acceptable.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we do indeed face a situation which is not only difficult but also very sad. For years, we have argued here in this House that we could not let a Turkish nationalist position prevent Cyprus's accession to the European Union. We were always resolute in our position. However, this has led us into a trap which the warned about years ago. We asked what guarantees there were that, with a radical change on the Turkish side, the guaranteed accession of Greek Cyprus would not take place at the expense of the northern part of the island. This debate has always been neglected in this House, and we are paying a high price for this neglect today. The situation is irreversible, and when they vote in the referendum, the Greek Cypriots will not be deciding their own future. They will decide on the future of the Turkish Cypriot community in the northern part of the island. The Greek Cypriots are already about to join the European Union. And then you talk about the plan. Mr Modrow, please think about it for a moment: the situation is like the Sudeten Germans saying: ‘We refuse to let the Czech Republic join the European Union until our claims in the Czech Republic have been settled.’ This House made it clear that that is unacceptable. As a -winger, please convey that message to the Greek Cypriots as well. This is an historic plan. On the and the right, up and down, we are always saying that the UN should do this and the UN should do that ... Now, the UN has decided. Of course a plan is a plan; it does not reflect the Greek Cypriot or the Turkish Cypriot position. This UN plan is an attempt to remove the last barbed wire border from the EU. What is our response? The sophists – for we are dealing with Greeks here – are back in power; they say, ‘Yes, it is moving in the right direction, but it could be better’. Yes, the world could be a better place, I admit that. The world could be a much better place, and even if the secure an absolute majority in Europe ... (Laughter) ... the world will not become a better place! You see, you were too quick off the mark again, but I know what I am saying. I am convinced that the message we must send out is this. If there is a 'no' vote in the south and a 'yes' in the north, the European Union should open political relations with the north. As a first step, we must lobby for the lifting of the embargo against the north of the island. The citizens in the north should not be held hostage by the south. We cannot allow that on grounds of political decency. Then we will see what happens. One thing is certain, however: there is not a 'possible' UN plan: this is the only one. There is not a 'possible' future: this is the only one. Very many of you are religious. I believe in miracles. I believe in the miracle that the people in the southern part of the island really will prove to be more intelligent than their self-appointed leaders, including the Green parties in Cyprus. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate you on an excellent start to your presidency. This debate has shown that there is much support and much appetite in this House for reform, in this lively exchange we are having in the catch-the-eye procedure at the end of this debate. You were kind enough to refer to my own report, which hopefully will be on the agenda at the next part-session. We are building quite a broad consensus on the bulk of the proposals contained in my report. In the last few days many groups have been kind enough to invite me to address their meetings and to engage in building this consensus. I am now quite confident that there will be a majority next month in favour of a useful package of reforms that will not solve all our problems – far from it – but will be a useful step forward. To those colleagues who feared that there may be elements of my report which are unfavourable to the smaller groups, I would like to reassure them. There is nothing that significantly undermines the position of the smaller groups in my report. If they continue to have fears, I shall be very happy to meet them to try to find a solution to any issue they wish to raise. My preferred solution is to persuade them, but I am open to other solutions if we can find them. This will be a useful part of the reform process and I thank you very much for your support.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we voted to reject Mr Sousa Pinto’s document because it does not offer a proper European police service and, in practice, proposes a copy of the European Police Academy. I would like to see national police services backed up by a genuine, efficient, effective European police service. Just as the United States – sometimes they do get it right – has the FBI, Europe must also have its federal police, a police service that works properly, is not a waste of money and is close to the citizen. Despite being European, it must be the police service of European citizens. – Stockton report (A5-0167/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
The report discusses the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and proposes that it be binding. A binding charter which is as broad in its application will be a driving force for further integration and supranationality. The Court of Justice of the European Communities is to be given increased powers to rule on human rights cases. Having a charter which has the force of primary law opens the way, in principle, for secondary legislation (regulations and directives) based on the charter. I share the opinion of the Swedish parliament in saying ‘no’ to a binding charter, and I think that the EU should instead only join the European Convention. I cannot, therefore, support the draft.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the 1998 review created serious problems in both Spain and Greece, especially with the 419 000 tonne quota, when it was a known fact, on the basis of the data from the directorates of agriculture, that production in Greece totalled 600 000 tonnes and more. The quota of 419 000 tonnes created serious problems for small olive producers. As the Ministry of Agriculture, in an effort to manage this issue, reduced production, we had these results; as you know, we had continual demonstrations in Greece because this tiny quota did olive producers an injustice. So as far as the demand by my honourable friend from Spain is concerned, I think that the injustice is the same in Greece. That is why, Commissioner, these quotas need to be changed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, history has taught us that it is almost impossible to work together with dictators, because they do not care if their own people suffer. That is also the case with the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people have had to pay dearly for their leader’s unyielding attitude. Iraq’s leadership has not even wanted to fully exploit the ‘oil for food’ programme, but has preferred to allow its citizens to suffer from a lack of adequate nourishment and medicine. For us Europeans, who work on the assumption that there should be compliance with international agreements and a policy of cooperation, it has been a difficult experience to find that only military pressure has persuaded Saddam Hussein to allow the work of the weapons inspectors to be carried out. Prior to that the Iraqi leadership had defied the decisions of the UN and not agreed to give up its weapons of mass destruction and weapons programmes. Although there has been progress with the weapons inspections there are still more than a hundred unanswered questions in the weapons inspectors’ reports. They concern such matters as unmanned fighter aircraft and the fate of scud missiles and the anthrax solutions. My country, Finland, strongly emphasises the importance of the UN’s role in finding a solution to the Iraq crisis. President Halonen said yesterday that Finland will support the Security Council and its decisions and that force without its authorisation was unacceptable. Halonen also said that Finland supports the continuation of the work of the weapons inspectors as long as it is meaningful and useful. The Security Council must consider how much time it has got left on the basis of the weapons inspectors’ report. It is extremely important that the Security Council members use all their skill to achieve unanimity. The aim should obviously be for Iraq to be disarmed without the use of force. If this calls for military action it must have the approval of the Security Council. Purposeful diplomacy must come before public appearances by the Security Council members. The weapons inspectors must be given enough time to do their work, but that must not mean that Saddam Hussein can play endless games with the international community. Throngs of people throughout the world have gone onto the streets to demonstrate in favour of a peaceful solution to the Iraq dispute. There must be a genuine chance for peace, but the precondition for a peaceful solution is that the international community must be certain that Iraq does not have dangerous weapons of mass destruction in its possession or any programmes to develop them. The role of the UN and its Security Council must come first in resolving the Iraq crisis. If the UN cannot now act we are in danger of losing the most essential global instrument we have in safeguarding world peace. The European Union must now take a united stand and use all its powers to shore up the viability of the UN.

Political group: PSE