GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the start of the negotiations on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, which will at last open up the prospect that country deserves. Unlike its neighbour Slovenia, immediately after independence in 1991 Croatia was not able to develop in a way as to allow it to become a candidate for accession at this point. For at the time, in 1991, one third of the country was occupied. At the time the Croats were driven out. In 1991/92 more than 250 000 Croats were expelled from Kraijina, from western and eastern Slavonia. They were not able to return to their homes until the, to my mind, justified­ recapture of these areas. There they found their property and possessions in ruins. Unfortunately, during this recapture Serbs who had the right to live there were expelled in return, not just by the Croats but sadly also by their Serb ringleaders, who, of course, did the same in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Sarajevo. Unfortunately, we also saw serious attacks carried out during this recapture. But we should not confuse cause and effect. We then punished Croatia for this recapture by denying it our friendship. We refused to grant it any aid. And because we refused to help, many things then started to go wrong in Croatia, with wrongful privatisation, corruption and so on. The new government has now taken a European line in many policy areas. It is seeking to cooperate with The Hague. It has stopped supporting separatist movements in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is currently adopting difficult austerity measures in order to meet the preconditions. So I believe Croatia has deserved this support. It can become a factor of stability throughout the region.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was going to say on behalf of my group that we are pleased to see that a Green Paper is forthcoming, but perhaps I am in the minority in saying that I am pleased to see that a Green Paper is forthcoming in the sense that something is actually happening. The promise of future consultation and feasibility studies is to be welcomed, but this should not be an excuse for doing nothing. In that sense I agree with my colleagues that something has to happen sooner rather than later. Process can be important, and we must get that right. I would like to make two points on behalf of my group, the first relating to competition. Competition is excellent – we agree with the internal market – in that it is a way of raising standards generally and can also be a way of raising standards in the services concerned, but not for its own sake. Perhaps it would be interesting to look at a country outside the EU – Switzerland – in terms of energy policy. Recently the Swiss had a referendum to ascertain whether they should liberalise their energy provision, presently provided by their local cantons. Swiss citizens voted against this because they were not satisfied that choice in that sense would raise standards – it might just prove confusing. That question was put to the citizens of Switzerland. We, on the other hand, are waiting for a framework to establish how we should introduce such choices across Europe. The second issue of particular importance to my group is universal services provision. This guarantees social cohesion across Europe. Taking my own constituency, for instance, and the current issue of broadband, letters are flooding into my office from constituents in rural areas who complain that broadband is available in certain cities, but not for them. Such matters have to be resolved so that we can provide the same level of service to all our citizens and therefore guarantee the social cohesion which is so important to Europe. It is ridiculous that the Convention and its working groups are currently discussing these issues. These matters call for coordination as we move forward with the development of Europe. So it is good that something is actually happening, it is good that there has been a statement, but let us get on with it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, our prayers and sympathy go to the 118 sailors and their families. They deserve our solidarity. But it must also be considered that we have a major concern in connection with the Kursk disaster, namely the situation in Russia. We need to be quite clear that President Putin and the Russian authorities covered up a lot of the circumstances surrounding this accident. Facts were suppressed, falsified or hushed up. But in one interview he spoke the truth when he said that the Kursk accident was symptomatic of Russia's condition as a whole. This is a situation that we finally have to face up to. We have to see the reality for what it is. This is not just about nuclear safety and the nuclear submarine fleet, it is also about a mass of highly developed arms technologies for which there are no appropriate control and safety measures. That is why it is of the utmost importance that we should do everything to ensure transparency finally reaches Russia. It is only because of Mr Nikitin, and the independent media, which face increased repression, that we heard about the disaster at all, four days after the event. Thanks to international support, it was at least possible to avoid the very worst and I hope that it will also be possible to find a solution. But that is not a satisfactory state of affairs. That is why they need not only our help, but also frank talking. What is called for is some plain speaking and an offer of cooperation that does not just mean reaching for our cheque book, but also includes developing the rule of law, democratic processes and independent media in Russia. The most important point is to educate and support all democratic forces, all the independent media, the administration, the judiciary, and young politicians, especially those in local government, so that Russia becomes a partner with whom we can safely live together in Eurasia. I do not want to go into other issues such as Chechnya and a host of others at this point. Kursk by itself is symptomatic of how disasters in Russia can have a direct environmental and political impact on our part of Europe. That is why it is very much in our interest to make sure that Russia gradually becomes a democratic state where the rule of law prevails. What we are witnessing at present under President Putin is instead a retrograde trend which is a matter of great concern to us. So we have an enormous responsibility here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Commissioner, for such a precise reply. This issue is very important in Czech domestic politics and the eurosceptics are making a real song and dance about it. Thank you for clarifying the situation as regards Slivovitz, although I must say that I think Moravian Slivovitz is one of the best there is. As far as Utopenec is concerned, I shall investigate the matter. I should just like to point out to you that this is obviously a hygiene issue. I would be most grateful if you could look into this and, when you have a moment, let me know what specialities have been included in applications for derogations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this report expresses a positive position towards aquaculture, which we support, because we believe this will always only be a complement to the fisheries sector and not a replacement for it. The report places aquaculture in the context of sustainable development and the precautionary principle, which requires, in particular, full attention to be paid to environmental issues and the production of genetically modified fish to be rejected. We agree with the rapporteur’s argument for maintaining aid under the FIFG and the participation of the main parties involved, the need for research to be promoted and for an economic instrument to be created to support possible crisis situations in the sector, such as natural disasters. Nevertheless, we wish to draw attention to particular aspects and special needs that must be taken account of in this activity. Aquaculture must not be compared with any industry other than farming and livestock breeding, given that it has direct consequences for the development of species and the environment, specifically coastlines and alternative land uses. Furthermore, opportunities for the intensification and verticalisation of production can present major risks for human and animal health, which must be monitored so as to prevent any type of ‘mad cow disease’ for fish. Hence the need for greater support for research into this activity, for the use of production techniques, hygiene and safety standards, by making the application of the precautionary principle a priority, and for reducing environmental impacts, with specific assistance needing to be given to small and medium–sized enterprises. Lastly, I wish to inform you that our group supports both this report on European aquaculture, by, Mr Martin, whom I congratulate, and the report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, whom I also congratulate, on fishing in international waters, which we will be discussing here today.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This resolution is a shameless confession of what the ΕU means by 'cooperation' with the Balkan countries. At the same time, it reveals to the most disbelieving why Yugoslavia was bombed and what the purpose of breaking it up was. Within the framework of a clearly neo-colonialist policy, the European Parliament is calling on the Balkan countries to come into line with euro-unification and euro-Atlantic standards, to set integration into the EU as their sole prospect, to change their political structure and their internal legislation and to condemn their past. It is also calling on them to ensure they create a reliable system of prosecution, personal records and information, train their police in accordance with Europol standards, cooperate fully with the 'court' on Yugoslavia and reform their education systems in line with EU standards. These are the foundations on which the Greek Government and the ΕU are building their policy in the Balkans: subjugation, abolition of any concept of national independence, in order to facilitate the penetration of the monopolies and the plundering of peoples and countries. In voting against this disgraceful text, we the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece are emphasising that there is an increasingly urgent need to step up the peoples' fight against the imperialist expansionism of the ΕU, against monopoly interests. - Report Oostlander (A5-0160/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I voted for the Müller report, and I say so with great conviction. I support Mrs Müller’s cause and hope that the appeals made to the House by Mrs Jackson, as well as her statements, and also the assurances given by Mrs Banotti, the Quaestor, about settling the matter of this unacceptable and unbelievable interference – not only for the sake of our parliamentary work but also, I believe, for democracy as a whole, for the development of parliamentary debate – will achieve their aim as soon as possible, so that interference of this kind – which even included death threats – cannot happen again, in other words so that those responsible can be suitably reported and such things can never be repeated. I am confident that Mrs Banotti will handle this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, there are agreements between some of the candidate countries, such as the customs union agreement between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, rather than the Visegrad agreement, which could render the situation rather more complex should only one of the two countries join the Union, for example, if the Czech Republic were to join but not Slovakia or vice versa. Now, as has rightly been said, all the countries have to respect all the necessary parameters and criteria. Should this situation arise, what line should we take? Secondly, with regard to countries such as Croatia, countries which are not yet candidates, that is, although they have made considerable progress towards applying for and achieving the status of candidate countries, what is the current situation? Lastly, we have touched on the issue of Cyprus, with regard to which you said that were we to be faced with a reaction such as that threatened by the Turkish Prime Minister, there would be a very serious crisis. My feeling is that, in this regard, we are proceeding almost without any safety net at all, for such a reaction would involve the annexing of part of the territory of the European Union. It may be that we should safeguard ourselves against such an eventuality and allow ourselves a moment’s reflection before coming up against this situation, which I feel is so very sensitive.

Political group: PPE-DE
The most important development for the EU’s future right now is that the Intergovernmental Conference should reach agreement concerning the reforms which are required in order to facilitate the enlargement of the Union in accordance with a fixed timetable. It is therefore a matter of urgency that the Nice Summit should be able to make decisions concerning the Amsterdam leftovers. We have voted in favour of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights being introduced as a matter to be considered by the Intergovernmental Conference, thereby guaranteeing, among other things, citizens’ rights in relation to the EU’s institutions. The Charter is an expression of the EU’s ambition to bring the EU closer to its citizens. Our point of departure is that the work on reviewing the treaties must progress following the Nice Summit and that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights should form part of this on-going process.

Political group: PPE-DE
It may perhaps have escaped your notice, Commissioner, that in Austria this issue has for some years now been a cause of immense commotion, which has resurfaced in the last few weeks. All the provinces, all the parties and also the major daily newspapers are in agreement; rebellion is everywhere in the air. Water, as you know, is life. Austria is still a very agricultural country, and if you so much as hint to a farmer that his water is going to be taken away from him, then war is on the cards. I cannot imagine Austria ever agreeing to the liberalisation of the water supply, and I hear similar things from other countries, such as Germany and the Nordic countries. Will the Commission, in the face of this vehement resistance, seriously rethink the liberalisation of this area?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one reason why I would ask that we be given statistics on the Council’s attendance during the course of the last Presidencies is that I believe that the press would find it very interesting to see with what assiduity the Council attends the sittings of this House. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Commission’s Everything But Arms initiative was and is an important breakthrough that enables the poorest countries to gain access to the European market without quantitative or tariff barriers. Unfortunately this proposal was seriously toned down for rice and sugar at the time and was postponed following pressure by the European sugar industry and sugar-producing countries. It is still important to realise that a country like Mozambique, which was completely dependent on food from elsewhere as a result of an endless civil war, is now able to provide her own food thanks to good internal distribution. This has to do with the construction of water systems, good environmental management and the participation of local farmers. With external help, the local systems were repaired after the floods. In short, a success story. The link with European agricultural protectionism is nevertheless very distressing in this case as well. Under normal circumstances, Mozambique would earn as much from her sugar production on the world market as she now receives in international aid. The situation is not normal, however, as consumer prices are artificially high in Europe, and are therefore ruining the world market. This naturally requires a restructuring of our industry, including a social plan. Our refusal to break through our protectionism structurally undermines poor countries’ own food supplies. It is complete lunacy if the final stage in this vicious circle of hunger consists of dumping our surpluses on the markets we have already undermined through low world market prices. We must continue to buy from the regions themselves as an absolute priority, even if the price is slightly higher. In short, our proposals to turn Doha into a development round require more than the current Commission proposals. The Commission has proposed cutting export subsidies by 45%, but in Doha we were talking about abolition. Forty-five per cent is only a start, and things must go a lot faster. A one-third cut in tariffs is not enough either, and the Commission’s proposal to get tariffs on agricultural imports from developing countries down to zero must go further than just half of these imports. This is of great importance when it comes to bridging the gap between the developed and the developing world. It goes without saying that good governance, a good regional agricultural policy that does not throw everything into exports but concentrates first on local self-sufficiency coupled with regional trade, are likewise indispensable. The help of the EU is very important in this regard. Europe now gives with the one hand and takes away with the other. Protectionism. It is high time Europe started making a difference and really started cooperating with these countries.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, there were a couple of dissenting voices in the Committee on Agriculture about a subsidy for tobacco and I was one of them. I make no apology for that. I support the Commission very much on what they are trying to do in phasing out tobacco subsidies and I would encourage them to continue at a faster pace, rather than a slower one. We cannot justify European taxpayers' money being spent on tobacco production. One of the key objectives of the common agricultural policy is to produce good, wholesome food for the consumers of Europe. I cannot quite see how tobacco fits into this scenario. I have a great deal of respect for Mr Cunha, the rapporteur, but on this occasion he has got it wrong. He is a little like King Canute, who wanted to stop the tide coming in but was unsuccessful. The Committee on Agriculture did not face up to the realities. Over the past ten years we in Europe have spent GBP 6.5 billion or EUR 10 billion – GBP 2 for every citizen in Europe – to subsidise tobacco. One third of this tobacco is of very low quality and is seldom smoked at all. Another third is dumped on Developing World markets which then destroys their markets for tobacco. Is this a role of the common agricultural policy? It is a role we have tried to avoid. Only one third of this tobacco is smoked in Europe. We cannot, therefore, justify the support that we are giving. We all accept the need to support farming in rural communities, but we have to find different crops and different ways of supporting them in the future. The final point I wish to make is that, of all the areas of this support that I dislike, the continuation in Amendment No 17 of the support for very low-quality tobacco is the most wrong. If anything should be corrected it is this. I urge the Commission to phase out the growing of this very low-quality tobacco immediately.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after eleven years in this House, I can bear witness to the fact that debates on small and medium-sized businesses in our Parliament are neither new nor rare. It has to be said that on the basis of European Union criteria, over 99% of companies could be defined as SMEs, which is not very sensible. That very fact illustrates the European vagueness of the concept and explains many uncertainties. Bear in mind that the first Community action programme in this area was adopted in 1983, seventeen years ago. Our rapporteur, Mrs Montfort, has done excellent work over the last few weeks, in-depth work in close collaboration with all her colleagues. She has identified the points where there was a lack of clarity or significant slippage between statements and reality in the Commission’s text. Her work, in which we have assisted, has consisted of pinpointing issues and trying to establish a more precise classification of the different types of SME, micro-enterprises and craft businesses. And, along those lines, we too have tabled and pressed for a series of strong, concrete proposals for moving from words to deeds, in relation to SMEs, by giving them access to innovation and electronic commerce, simplifying certain customs formalities for them, ending certain disparities in administration and regulations, developing – and this is important – access to risk capital, developing the Euro Info Centres to broaden the scope of business information and support, and making the framework programme for research and technological development more open to innovative SMEs. As far as I and my friends are concerned, we have sought to put the accent on crafts and micro-enterprises. I have asked for environmental and sustainable development targets to be properly taken into consideration, and for access of SMEs to new communications and information technologies to be promoted. I have also asked that actions geared to specific groups like women, young people and the social economy sectors be encouraged, not forgetting employee participation in the life of these SMEs in general. SMEs are the major source of job creation, in terms of both quality and quantity, and they play a crucial role in social cohesion and regional planning. That is why it is very urgent to remove the many obstacles to their development and organise the necessary training. So, Mrs Montfort, I hope a massive vote for your report will finally allow us to make a qualitative leap forward in this area, and also that certain excessively liberal amendments will be rejected, for instance, on reducing the number of promotional programmes and on creating a new monitoring centre. If I had to sum it up in a nutshell, Mr President, I would say that what we need here– and if I say so myself – is less ideology and more action.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, it does not seem fair to me that, if any Member is entitled to ask a supplementary question after his initial question, the four of us are only allowed to ask one joint supplementary question. I do not think that this is what is laid down in the Rules of Procedure.

Political group: Verts-ALE