GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the Danish Presidency for the conclusions of the Brussels Summit in preparing the way for these ten countries to begin to assume obligations of membership by the beginning of 2004. But I have questions on budgets, on Cyprus and on further enlargement on which I would like further clarification. Firstly the budgets: we welcome the overall approach agreed between the institutions on budgetary and financial issues but, as a parliament, we would like to be fully informed by the Commission on the stage of negotiations and set up a process of dialogue with the Council so we can come to conclusions at the end of the year. In so doing, firstly, we would like some clarity about potential new obligations on foreign policy which could arise as a result of enlargement. We have asked for a report from the Commission regarding this which we are awaiting. Secondly, agricultural reform: in the House of Commons, upon his return from the European Council, Mr Blair said that he was fully supportive of the first point of the agreement on additional limits on expenditure; he was not in support of the price for it – no CAP reform. That was defeated at the summit. The question to the President of the Commission is whether this reform is still on course and what has now happened to the mid-term review. Looking to the future, I would like to pick up Mr Barón Crespo's point. It is not usual for us to be in agreement, but certainly when it comes to financial perspective of 1999, I was against it for precisely the same reasons that he mentioned – how can you plan so far into the future? And, at least until 2013, the Parliament itself must be involved in the negotiation of this financial perspective once the negotiations are under way. In terms of Cyprus, I would like a clear statement that neither the Commission nor the Council intends to set a date for the opening of negotiations. We must have the full and fair implementation of the Copenhagen criteria in political and economic matters. Perhaps, above all, it is a decision for the Member States and not for other countries to take a decision as to when a date should be set for Turkey to start negotiations. Lastly, on the point raised by Mr Swoboda, it is critically important that we set out a strategy for a 'new neighbours' initiative and that Copenhagen should provide a mechanism whereby we can really come to terms with those countries which could be potential candidates. We need a strategy on how to handle the demands which we will face in the months and years ahead. It is not sufficient that we should simply say everybody is welcome, because I believe there is a limit to the matters of EU enlargement and this should be thought about now.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I concur with all the speakers who have pointed out that the current changes in Turkish policy are completely inadequate. Nonetheless, as a Member of Parliament of Kurdish origin, I advocate financial aid and economic cooperation, and I also support Turkey in its integration into the European Union, on condition, however, that the Helsinki conditions be fulfilled, i.e. the question of Cyprus, the human rights issues and the Kurdish question must be settled politically, capital punishment must be completely abolished and all prisoners must receive a general amnesty. Kurdish identity must be recognised!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I voted for the Dimitrakopoulos report, although I do have some reservations about it. The Dimitrakopoulos report does not go far enough for me in terms of EU federalisation and integration. I believe that we should go much further, and move more determinedly, towards federalisation and away from nation states, towards the regions and the peoples of Europe. I hope, even if the omens for this Intergovernmental Conference are not the best, that there may still be an opening here or there. I am enough of a realist to know that this is a gradual process. That is why I voted for this report and I hope that we will take many more such steps in the near future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to refer to Mr Corbett's statement and also to your own, Madam President. On behalf of the Group of the and the , I would like to say that the President of this Parliament has behaved quite properly in this matter, and to express our full support for you on this, Madam President. (Applause from the right) It is amazing that the Socialist Group has raised this subject in debate during every part-session, either here in Brussels or else in Strasbourg. Mr Corbett, you say you are concerned about the reputation of the European Parliament. What you are really worried about is the election campaign in Italy, and you want to influence that campaign by enabling your political friends to benefit from a debate here in Brussels. (Applause from the right) However, unlike the President, I am free to express my own opinion, because things are being insinuated here, and to comment on the fact that Mrs Garaud, for whom I have great respect, has so far not been able to travel to Madrid. The President made a discreet reference to the reason. Why is it that Mrs Garaud has been unable to undertake the mission? It is because her husband has died. We offer her our sincere sympathy. I am saying this so that there can be no more insinuations here. (Applause from the right) That brings me to the question of how this was dealt with in the Conference of Presidents. I am one of those people who not only always wants debates to be held here, but also believes that we should make decisions. However, we need to recognise that the Conference of Presidents reached a unanimous decision. It was unanimously agreed that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs chaired by our esteemed colleague Mr Napolitano, who is not a member of my group, should now draft a report on how we deal with the procedures for waiving immunity. That was a unanimous decision. That is why I was very surprised, after the Conference of Presidents, to hear about a letter from the chairman of the Socialist Group to the President of Parliament, in which the very decision we had agreed upon was once again called into question. If this were about another person, if this did not involve a country in the middle of an election campaign, then I am sure that the Socialist Group would not keep raising this issue in this House. That is why we very firmly reject these attempts to influence the election campaign in Italy and the democratic process of forming a new government in that country. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, it would have been nice if the President-in-Office of the Council could still be here to hear us discuss this but, never mind, we are used to this sort of thing. I would like to start, Madam Vice-President, by reiterating that you have taken a very great deal of trouble in submitting a very well thought-out proposal. Setting up the van Miert Group was a very good idea, and the Commission proposal is influenced by what it produced and you revised. For that, many thanks; especial thanks, too, to my colleague Mr Bradbourn, whose report is the result of very careful work. As it stands, the report is not entirely what he would have liked to see, as a fortuitous majority in the Committee pushed through very substantial amendments to Annex III, but perhaps we can sort that out tomorrow. There are just three major points that I want to discuss. My group is in agreement with the list of priority projects being extended to 30. I now hear that the Council has suddenly decided that it no longer wants the 30th. It has to decide, then, what it actually wants. Although we are prepared to extend the list by adding, for example, the project for a fixed link across the Fehmarnbelt, we want a more precise definition of the projects in some areas covered by Annex III. This is the subject of a number of amendments, and I hope that the Council will accept them. My group is, at present, prepared to keep the list to 30 projects, as we know that, according to Article 156(2), decisions on trans-European networks cannot be taken in opposition to the Member States, so it makes no sense to make major additions to the list in the short time available. This means that we are taking the same line as Commissioner de Palacio, and I hope that the other groups will do likewise. Madam Vice-President, we very much welcome the idea of motorways of the sea; I see the advancement of short-distance transport by sea, especially ferries, as very important. As a mode of transport, it saves a great deal of energy, is highly environmentally friendly, and will tend to take the load off road and rail corridors. However, Madam Vice-President, we are behind the rapporteur. Motorways of the sea must not be used as an excuse to inject state funds in the form of subsidies, with the state even buying ships in order to compete with private enterprise. That goes against the whole idea of trans-European networks, the object of which was always to improve infrastructure so that business can use it. Using them to extend it is not acceptable. I think we will sort things out with the Council in a sensible way, but there is very little time in which to reach an agreement. If, by Monday evening, the Council has not precisely defined what its interests are, and thereby enabled us to agree on the details, nothing will happen by 1 May; the fact is that Parliament will not simply abandon the good positions incorporated into the Bradbourn report simply because the Council is obstinately sticking to its own. Codecision is at issue here. Both sides have to give way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, noise pollution caused by aircraft is a very topical issue. We talked about hushkits not so long ago. I understand from the observations made by the Commissioner that the regulation as it has been laid down will enter into force on 4 May next. Mr President, it is not only hushkits which are causing us considerable concern. In broader terms too, we have to establish that, on account of the increase in air traffic, noise pollution is growing at an alarming rate, especially for citizens who live near busy airports. At night time, in particular, this level of pollution is out of all proportion. The number of night flights should therefore be significantly reduced. But what is meant by night? At Düsseldorf airport, night falls at 10 p.m., according to Mr Florenz. We in the Netherlands are far more flexible in this respect. Night does not set in until 1.00 a.m. and we do not actually term it night, we refer to it as the brink of night. Mr President, whatever time we are talking about, it means that we need a coherent approach to noise pollution caused by the transport of civilians and freight by air, as the individual Member States are applying very different rules. These lead to the direct and undesired effect that airports start to compete with each other. They reason that as long as they are flexible enough, they will get a lot of freight traffic. But, at the end of the day, it is the people living near airports who suffer. Mr President, so what needs to happen? First of all, all noise pollution, including pollution generated by aircraft, must be tackled at source. This means thorough research into low-noise engines. This means bans and international standards. But it also means that we need European framework legislation which ensures that measurements are taken, standards set, zonal structures put in place in the same way for all European airports. What we are asking for – not for the first time, in fact, we did this two and a half years ago in connection with the report on noise pollution which was supported by the late Mrs Carmen Diez de Riviera – is this legislation. Commissioner and Mrs Reding – you are representing Mrs de Palacio at the moment – you are saying that this is extremely difficult, but I am not asking you for a ban, or even a night ban. What I do want is to keep the discussion around this issue going and to continue where Parliament left off before. It was our own amendment, tabled on behalf of the European People’s Party. Let us thus fight for a European directive which, thanks to Mrs Loyola de Palacio’s new impetus, ensures that we – at long last – can give our citizens what is theirs. That is peace and quiet at night, but this also implies a proper zonal structure, insulation and sound legislation in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, like others, I wear a badge which symbolises trade with justice. Open trade – yes, but only with rules. Our national and European interests, yes of course, but also the interests of the developing world – your approach, Commissioner, and ours. I am going to concentrate on two frankly difficult areas – TRIPS and the environmental aspects of trade which you have already mentioned. Firstly, TRIPS: what we now have in the agreement is not clear enough or good enough. Intellectual property rights are important in world trade, but we thought that the 25.5 million HIV positive people in sub-Saharan Africa could have access to cheap drugs under TRIPS. Let us ensure that this is made more explicit after Doha. Ironically, the United States, the world's most fierce defender of intellectual property rights is now faced with the dilemma of needing huge supplies of antibiotics to combat anthrax. Attitudes may change with new circumstances – in any case, they have to. Secondly, environmental standards. The EU faces charges of protectionism. Commissioner, you know that this is not the case, that we are ready to help developing countries in any way necessary as we are helping applicant countries, that we have science on our side and that we will not abandon our hard-won progress – why should we? Multilateral environment agreements cannot be discarded in the name of free trade and the precautionary principle must be explicitly included in WTO rules. This is a deal-breaker for us. We in the EU know more than any other part of the world how untrammelled free trade can be controlled through multilateral rule-making to the benefit of our citizens. Our achievements in the EU are relevant elsewhere, and we should defend them – your task Commissioner. I know you will be tough on our behalf. I hope you will be tough too on core labour standards. Seattle did not work – Doha can if it is fair and if there is a balance of trade and justice. Good luck Commissioner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission will be holding negotiations in the future on the accession of Turkey to the European Union. Will it make it a condition that negotiations can only start if the blockade is lifted because, in the final analysis, we are all neighbours and we want to cultivate positive neighbourly relations inside the European Union? My question therefore is this: will the Commission make this one of the conditions in order to improve future discussions?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I should like to congratulate the Commissioner for her commitment in this area and to thank her for that. She has tackled this issue with an enormous amount of dedication and enthusiasm. But unfortunately, the perception of the Luxembourg people is not shared throughout the Union, and there is still a great deal to do in this respect. That is why I was particularly disappointed that it was not possible at the Nice Summit to bring this matter into the realm of majority voting. We must resolve the various minority situations before they develop into problems. We need a preventive strategy. We have 60 minority situations in the European Union today. In the continent as a whole there are a total of 300. Even though the unanimity principle continues to apply, making certain policies difficult to pursue, perhaps a way could be found by means of structural support. Could I ask the Commissioner for her opinion on such an approach?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the auctions held in Great Britain have given the national coffers an enormous boost. Do you think it would be possible to draw up a voluntary agreement, in conjunction with the Economics and Finance Council, with a view to agreeing a form of words covering both auctions and beauty contests, and then in future, spend a certain amount of the proceeds on the e-commerce sector? I have in mind a voluntary agreement, according to which 30% or 50% of the funds would be used for research, training and further education, and for new infrastructure. I believe that in view of the fact that in Great Britain, the proceeds were approximately ten times higher than expected, people are now willing to think again about this revenue. I believe now would be an opportune moment for the Commission to put forward proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to add my own congratulations to those addressed to our colleague Mrs Dagmar Roth-Behrendt for all the energy and good will she has expended to get her report adopted. I remember the lively debates we have had in our Assembly, debates often full of emotion, whenever the question of animal welfare and public health has arisen. I would nevertheless like to point out that not all cosmetics are luxuries; a good many of them are household products used in daily hygiene, and their frequent use means that their safety must be assessed. While it is right to want to restrict experiments on animals, we must never forget that our prime objective is to guarantee the health of our fellow citizens. That is where we need the wisdom to be able to strike a balance between the need to find alternatives to tests on animals and the need to give priority to public health. We do not want to put the cosmetics industry in difficulties either, however, since it is an important part of our economy. The industry has been in the picture for a long time and has been able to plan the necessary investments for developing alternative methods. Our rapporteur has clearly explained that we have been discussing all this for at least 10 years. We should also stress the many efforts that have already been made and the encouraging results that have been obtained. But we cannot exactly take for granted the advances that science will make. Scientific results do not come to order, neither can they be programmed for a precise date, but they can be encouraged. It is in this spirit that I see the need to set cut-off dates with possible extensions for methods that today are still at the initial planning stage. We must have faith in our manufacturers, but sometimes our role is to encourage them to do more, to think about the future differently, to develop an awareness of our society’s expectations. Cosmetics have proved their safety. What is needed is for the information for the consumer to be made more accurate and relevant. Labelling must therefore be perfect and not have the opposite of the intended effect. For example, to take the example of various allergens, the information that has to be communicated must not frighten the consumer. It must be simple and enable them, if they are particularly sensitive to a product, to make the best choice. Finally, I will end by saying that this third reading is a good example of the quality of the parliamentary work that has been done under the responsibility of our rapporteur.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a year ago, the current NATO General Secretary, George Robertson, described the task in Kosovo clearly and succinctly in the following terms: 'The objective is to get the Serbs out, NATO in and the Albanians home'. It was successful and a victory for justice and human rights. I was there before the war began. At that time, the Serbs had already driven 200 000 to 300 000 people from their homes and had ravaged and laid waste whole areas of the country. And I was there again a couple of weeks ago and can testify to the enormous change for the better which has occurred thanks to NATO’s intervention. I can also testify to the incredibly efficient work being done by KFOR, the UN mission (UNMIK) and the UNMIK police. I can, unfortunately, also testify to what the debate here ought especially to be about, namely the fact that it is now the Serbs who are being persecuted by people who act with spite towards them, throw stones at them, burn their houses down and attempt to drive them from their homes. Now, it is the Serbs who need our attention. The police are doing everything possible, but nothing like the promised number of police has arrived. The EU countries, in particular, have gone back on their promise. Only one fifth of the police force comes from EU countries. That is partly why the former liberation organisation, the KLA is all too easily able to engage in anti-Serbian and criminal activities, which presumably also include murder, arson and attempts to drive people from their homes. So, what is now needed may be expressed as succinctly as a year ago: the objective is to get the KLA out, the police in and the Serbs home to those places in which they have always lived in Kosovo. The KLA must be disarmed and stripped of any monopoly position in the coming election campaign. They must also be divested of the special privileges they have evidently been given when it comes to recruiting for the new police force. The KLA’s criminal activity must be brought to an end. The EU countries must send more police and judges. The Serbs must be helped to return home. Attempts must also be made to help groups of Serbs in Serbia itself. In turn, it must be absolutely clear that the election planned for October in Kosovo must be held, irrespective of whether the Kosovan Serbs boycott it, for what are especially needed are Albanians, who are accountable. At the moment, all Albanians have been turned into clients and can blame everyone else for terrorism, street fights etc. What we need is to arrange for the Albanian majority to be held accountable.

Political group: ELDR