GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, if Cyprus and Malta accede to the Union – or rather when, not if – the Union will have the largest merchant fleet in the world. Not so much because these two countries are huge maritime powers, but because many shipowners find them ‘convenient’, and I use the English term advisedly. A large fleet is an advantage, of that there can be no doubt. But it entails a great deal of responsibility. We must therefore ensure that our fleet is safe; safety on our own doorstep is paramount, but elsewhere too the European flag must stand for quality. When I reported to Parliament on enlargement and transport, I held a great many talks with people in positions of responsibility in the candidate countries. They were all very quick to promise that they would transpose the relevant acquis into their national law. However, as I pointed out even then, things were still in the pipeline, especially the Erika II package under discussion today. That alone was cause for concern. Talks on transposing European law or, to use the Community jargon, ‘implementing the acquis’, soon got bogged down. In one case, I was even told that the inspector responsible was on holiday. We shall need much more than one inspector if we want to use serious, prompt, all-encompassing controls in order to prevent further disasters on our or anyone else's doorstep. We shall need sufficient numbers of trained inspectors and we shall need them quickly. The present Member States can do a great deal to help here. Twinning and the temporary secondment of well-trained specialists working in existing management and control structures recently proved to be a very effective instrument in reintegrating former East Germany. We could apply this model here too. With measures to guarantee that foreseeable problems will be dealt with promptly by well-organised accession mechanisms, we could contribute to the success of the enlargement process and, more importantly, win our citizens over. There are already more than enough concerns and fears on the question of enlargement. We must address these concerns and fears, be they major concerns or concerns about individual specialist aspects such as those under discussion today. I almost said there are a lot of Irish among us. Parliamentarians on the Administrative Board – not the best way of involving Parliament, I think. The Commission should monitor the agency and we should monitor the Commission. As an Austrian, I unfortunately have no high-sea ports to offer. We lost our last sea battle a hundred years ago. But I should like to think that we too could offer a pleasing location, should one be wanted.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sorry you could not give me the floor when I asked for it before the vote on Amendments Nos 55 and 56, precisely because the oral amendment was intended to allow the House to decide whether it could unite behind the compromise incorporated into my proposal before voting on Amendments Nos 55 and 56. At this point, as the first part has fallen because unfortunately I was not given a chance to speak, it is absolutely pointless to take the oral amendment, which related to the first part. I am sorry, because if we had accepted the reversal of the order, as the rapporteur proposed, I would have been able to present it. I tried to do so before the House voted, I did not get the floor and this is the result. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am pleased to inform the House that the UN Fish Stocks Agreement will enter into force on 11 December. This follows the thirtieth ratification by Malta, shamefully with no ratifications by the EU. Turning to Morocco, the will be voting against this proposal, not because we oppose compensation for fishermen put out of work, but because we oppose this particular package. Firstly it provides increased premiums for only certain people, those involved in Morocco. This discriminates against other fishermen and ship owners. Secondly, it will fund even more transfers of vessels to third countries, including flags of convenience, and there are still no controls in place to prevent this. Thirdly, it sets a very bad precedent if every time an agreement collapses or problems entirely foreseeable arise, we decide to dish out huge sums of European taxpayers' money. Clearly, the problem with fisheries agreements has to be addressed. Morocco is the first, but there are more to come.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am cautious about drawing historical comparisons, but it is appropriate to do so today. A generation of politicians in the Fifties – Konrad Adenauer, Robert Schuman, Jean Monnet, Alcide De Gasperi, Paul-Henri Spaak and others – had the courage and the vision to establish a European Community that would overcome a thousand years of antagonism between Germany and France and begin the unification of Europe in the West. We, the present political generation, have the opportunity, for the first time in a thousand years, to bring the continent together by peaceful means and on a voluntary basis into a European Union, a union of freedom, peace and prosperity. If we do not seize this opportunity, we will be failing in our historic mission. (Applause) The resolution of the European Parliament on the reunification of Europe will be adopted in one day, but the unification of the whole of Europe is a process, the task of an entire generation of politicians. Its accomplishment demands strenuous efforts, not only on the part of the acceding countries but also on that of the present Member States, for the Union is not simply becoming larger – it is also becoming a different Union. The new Member States will be more than a numerical addition to the membership of the present Union; they will give the European Union a new character. As they themselves are well aware, they are not only entering a market but are also acceding to a union whose desire and obligation it is to become a political union. They are joining in the Convention's work of building firmer foundations for this. For both the old and the new Member States, membership of the Union confers rights but also imposes responsibilities, in particular the duty to work with all available means on the development and consolidation of our common future for the benefit of all, for the good of the whole Union, and not just to increase their own store. Old Europe has fixed its eyes on a new future. Today we are giving it the green light, and I am deeply grateful to be able to play a part in this. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
We did not vote against this report insofar as it contains a number of correct general principles such as the need to combat racism in the workplace and reduce inequalities between the sexes on the job market. Nor did we vote for it because it is all too vague, all too pie in the sky. And yet, in the chapter on aid and training for refugees, the report marks a step backwards from the initial text by stipulating that they no longer apply to refugees as such but to “refugees within the meaning of the Geneva Convention”. This restriction is inadmissible at a time when countless refugees throughout Europe are in a drastic situation, with no protection, forced to work on the black market, and to hide, while so-called democratic governments and state police forces hunt them down. The first thing we need to do in this area is to give these stateless people the legal means to live a decent life and be able to work without being relegated to the status of pariahs, the victims of unscrupulous employers and multiple forms of administrative and police harassment, the main form of which is having to live in permanent fear of expulsion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in the position he adopted on this issue, Mr Prodi was a strong advocate of the Community method, which is the federation method. He also represented opportunism on a large scale. If you swear by the Community method you are not supposed to suggest that the Council has a right to dismiss the Commission. To use President Prodi’s own language, the proposal is stupid – stupide. The Commissioners are a collection of civil servants who do not need to inspire parliamentary confidence. If there are abuses they must be penalised just like other civil servants. The Commission wants to increase its power at the expense of political decision-makers. It was unclear as to whether the earlier proposal to grant the Commissioners unequal status is to remain in force. If it is, it means the EU would have its own ‘Politburo’, consisting, one assumes, of representatives of the big countries. From the point of view of the small countries, that is not democracy. The Commission’s demand to withdraw the system of consensual decision-making, or Member States’ right of veto, is an attack on the Member States. The right of veto is the last defence against supranational, unequal systems of decision-making under the Community method. Those representing the Commission in the Convention’s working group have been militarising the Union and creating a new European legal area in which there would be Euro-law and Euro-order. The Commission is calling for the common foreign and security policy to come under its control, with competence to be transferred from the Member States to the Commission. We must not allow the last vestiges of Member State independence to be crushed. The Commission had and still has support here for its proposal from the European federalists, whose aim it is to erode the independence of Member States and turn the EU into a federation. There is already a federal currency. The federal army will commence operations next year. Federal law and order are being got ready. The federalists are over-represented in the Convention on the constitution of the EU. Member States should not approve draft proposals for a federation drawn up by the Commission or the Convention simply as they are. We must not make compromises over the Commission’s status as a body of civil servants as opposed to a political government. Mr Prodi, power wielded by the Commission is not democracy. You are a servant, who has now adopted a position on matters that are the business of your masters.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I just wanted to explain that my group will nevertheless be voting against this amendment, because I think that discussion of embryo research has no place here. We are therefore voting against the amendment, even with this correction. (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Haug report (A5-0070/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, due to the large number of votes outstanding, I urgently request that we begin early enough with the votes tomorrow morning; otherwise, we will not be able to deal with everything. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President—in-Office of the Council, I do believe that it is essential that the Italian Presidency, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States of course, presents a motion for a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly calling for the adoption of a universal moratorium on death penalties. What is more, I also believe we have the obligation to present such a motion. Prudence cannot be allowed to make us forget our commitment to defend the right to life or our responsibility to work to increase international cooperation with a view to achieving the complete abolition of the death penalty in the world, because the death penalty is a violation of the fundamental right to life, and what is worse – as Amnesty International says – is that this violation is not only not hidden or denied, but is actually enshrined in the laws of the country which applies it. Furthermore, if a country does not respect the most fundamental of rights, with what authority will it demand from citizens respect for other rights and on what foundations will that country base its democracy and Rule of Law if its law allows the most important and most fundamental of rights to be violated: the right to life? For the European Union, therefore, the fight to abolish the death penalty and the fight for democracy and respect for human rights are and must be one and the same. It is true that progress has been made in this regard and that today far fewer countries maintain the death penalty in their legislation, but we are still far from its total abolition, as the statistics so cruelly demonstrate. The European Union, therefore, in order to be coherent in terms of the values on which it is founded, must make fighting the death penalty a priority, not only before the United Nations General Assembly, but also in its relations with third countries which have yet to abolish it, whatever links the Union may have with these countries or their strategic or commercial importance, because nobody must be given the power to decide on the life or death of a human being.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a distinction must be made between information and propaganda. Mr Prodi’s Commission has started off badly with regard to information. I have heard that last autumn it issued an instruction to the national Commission offices to focus on the reporting of political information in place of the former citizens’ information service. This means information and propaganda from above. Actually, this means the spread of propaganda, not information. The Commission has started off badly in the most important area of information reporting, that of public accessibility. The Commission has issued a draft for a directive on public accessibility, which, by any common yardstick, is an untenable document, more conducive to secrecy than increased public accessibility. This is the Commission’s line on information policy insofar as it concerns public accessibility. Public accessibility is just as important as information. It offers our citizens and the media the opportunity to have hands-on access to documents themselves and draw their own conclusions, instead of being dependent on those of the Commission. There is a very obvious discrepancy between the official documents themselves and the conclusions being drawn. The documents state that the European Union’s crisis management troops are not a European Army, but the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, says that whatever you call it, it is one. In an information context such as this, it is important to have access to the documents and draw one’s own conclusions, as the documents do not always spell things out clearly either. In addition, the way Parliament disseminates information must be criticised. Parliament has its own information offices, but the Finnish office apparently has no money to buy copies of the EU Treaty, which would allow Members to familiarise themselves with its contents in their office at Parliament. It has one Internet connection. To this extent, we could conclude that the officials working in Parliament’s own information office do not know what is going on in Parliament, although Parliament has excellent Internet connections. To all intents and purposes, it is a war of propaganda that is going on here. In many respects, it is also a civil war.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I certainly welcome what you say about Article 35. I have also tabled an amendment expressing great concern about this idea of inexperienced European volunteers going into what are often very complex humanitarian situations, where some degree of sensitivity – as you suggest – is needed; a degree of sensitivity that they would not have, which would be dangerous both for them and for others involved in such exercises. The issue of budgetisation again is something of which this Parliament's Committee on Development and Cooperation is, as you know, in favour, and has been for some time. Would you support my view that, in order to protect the European Development Fund, we should ringfence EDF money when it is budgetised in the way that we have suggested, to ensure that it is protected for ACP countries and does not slip into other areas of the world?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when I read yesterday's newspapers from Luxembourg, I was amazed at the fuss created by the , who have made themselves out to be the prime movers behind the revision of the Regulation harmonising certain social security provisions in the area of road transport. If our rapporteur had read these articles, he would surely also be astonished, as, out of the 269 amendments with which the committee had to get to grips, a mere 16 originated from the , and – thank God – 14 of those were voted out. It takes a certain kind of sheer nerve to muster the whole of Luxembourg's press in order to give them to believe that this report would bear the stamp of the Group of the , whereas it in fact saw the light of day in consequence of an agreement between the rapporteur and the three largest groups in this House. Today, I have voted against the amendment on driving times that the have put before us, my reason being that it does not guarantee the necessary flexibility and would do the drivers a disservice. A solution as inflexible as this one would in fact not permit those who have to drive at a great distance from their base to apportion their rest periods in such a way as to allow them to spend more time with their families and friends. I welcome the opportunity given to us at first reading to make a sensible contribution to a regulation on social provision that is clearer, safer, and more controllable. I hope that, from 2004, the digital tachograph will prevent black sheep from finding new boltholes!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I take issue with most of my colleagues who have spoken in the debate so far, as regards their desire to rush into some form of undefined new directive or regulation on so-called concentration and media ownership. As Mr Byrne pointed out to us in an admirably clear intervention, there is no treaty base for it. How is it going to be defined? How far do you intervene politically in issues of media concentration in areas that, as the Commissioner pointed out very clearly, cut across a whole range of other weapons the Commission has at its disposal to regulate monopoly power, a word that has been freely bandied around this Chamber this evening? If there is monopoly power commercially, then the instruments are there to tackle it and they should be used. I wonder how many colleagues who have contributed to this debate this evening have actually bothered to read the new package that regulates electronic communications. Mr Watson, who opened the debate, probably has not, because if you look at that regulation – and I was one of the colleagues that worked on it very closely – you will see that it anticipates the fact that we will have convergence and that the big issues that are opened up in the world of convergence are about controlling access to channels. There are provisions in this regulation to open up access, to make access available on fair reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, again key words we should be thinking about in any context, particularly in media. It also makes provision for public service broadcasting, an issue that we ought to be discussing more in this context, to allow governments to open up channels where they feel that public channels should be conveyed to the market place. Those issues are already there. Do not ignore them. I agree with what Mrs Hieronymi said. Certainly we should invite the Commission to look at this problem, but the last thing we should do is to anticipate the results of that analysis.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, I have before me the documents we will be voting on this week. I think that the most important report is the Clegg report, which has quite simply demonstrated that decisions can be made swiftly and unconventionally. I think that this should serve as a model for us in the European legislative process, so that new developments can be responded to quickly, simply and unbureaucratically with the right decisions. I would like to congratulate Mr Clegg on having managed to reconcile so many different interests. And I would also like to thank the Commission for complying so efficiently and competently with the Council's request to use the accelerated procedure in this case. I believe that we really are taking genuinely forward-looking steps as far as the European public is concerned. The public in Europe will feel, in their wallets, in the quality of services and also on the labour market, that these measures have made Europe more internationally competitive. We know that UMTS will provide us with a new service. The environment and telecommunications will in future play a very special role in international competitiveness. That is why I think it is important to create a level playing field. This directive in particular demonstrates that we have been very thorough in aiming for fairness, and this has been a model of how to legislate, with a review, with a proper and thorough examination, with all stakeholders being consulted, and, lastly, a good, efficient, swift and precise procedure in the European Parliament. Once again, I would like to express my very sincere thanks!

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Union must take definite action to cut its emissions of the most polluting gases. It must do so to protect the health of its citizens, to meet the Kyoto targets, to set an example to the world and to avoid looming catastrophe: the latest report from the International Energy Agency’s climatologists predicts that energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will double by 2030. That is why I voted for the creation of this ‘permit to pollute less’ that will apply to the main sectors of industry from 1 January 2005. Undertakings that exceed their quotas will be fined: EUR 40 per tonne excess, then EUR 100 per tonne after 2008. This system of trading quotas is therefore a real breath of fresh air that will enable these emissions to be cut by more than 20% from 2010, not to mention EUR 2 000 million in energy savings. There is one sour note all the same: I think it is unreasonable to ask Belgium to carry one eighth of Europe’s total ‘Kyoto’ costs when it has only around 2.5% of the population and accounts for just under 3% of European GNP. Saving the planet is the responsibility of us all, all the rich countries, all industries, including transport, and also individuals.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, here we are, all worried about our dependence on imported fuels and energy, worried about the future of our economy and our jobs, and yet we have Mr Fitzsimons and Mr Kronberger bemoaning and belittling one of the main potential sources for meeting that problem, the nuclear energy solution. Not only does it meet our energy and economic requirements, but it also meets our environmental requirements under Kyoto. I would say – and Mr Chichester's excellent report bears this out – that unless we diversify our sources of supply of energy, especially by promoting indigenous supplies of energy, we will be in trouble with our economy and our jobs in the future. Nuclear energy must play a significant part in both those ambitions: diversification and indigenous supplies. There are other areas as well. Mr Chichester mentioned coal. We must promote clean technologies in coal. In my part of the world, in Scotland, we would like to see more emphasis on promoting the oil and gas industries and their potential for better recovery systems, for exploration in marginal areas, for developing marginal oil and gas fields, for replenishing the reserves, the reservoirs in the south part of the North Sea, with gas in the meantime to protect us for the long term, and particularly transmission systems. That applies not only to oil and gas but also to electricity. In all these areas there is great potential for research. That ties us into what we will discuss tomorrow in the Caudron report on the Sixth Framework Programme. In all these areas, diversification, indigenous supplies and research will help us to meet our objectives.

Political group: PPE-DE