GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Europe can only play a leading role on the world stage if it is prepared to pay a high price for doing so. Unfortunately, this is still not the case. Its own inability leads to frustration and even to open humiliation, as we have seen in the recent mission to Israel, for example. The political price that has to be paid for more effective policy is a reduction in the amount of say that individual nations have for the sake of greater European unity. Decisive foreign policy cannot only be based on economic clout and generosity with euros. The Middle East conflict proves how limited the influence of Israel’s key trading partner and the largest provider of aid to the Palestinians actually is. Without the development of credible European defence, Europe remains a yapping puppy that is allowed to frolic alongside the American bulldog. In this context, the rapid reaction force is a necessary precondition, but it is not meeting the mark by a long shot with regard to all the Petersberg tasks and the fight against terrorism. Europe continues to lag behind in comparison with American military power, and we will not be able to catch up without a substantial increase in defence expenditure. And if we do not want this for political reasons, then fine, we should also accept the consequences. It is high time the rapid reaction force became operational. As it happens, a sound draft about cooperation between the European Union and NATO, which Turkey can endorse, is ready in Macedonia. Unfortunately, Greece continues to throw spanners in the works. In any event, Europe will remain autonomous in its decision-making. Unless we standardise and rationalise our resources, a European defence will never get off the ground. National egotism and commercial interests have for too long got in the way of creating a defence industry. If Europe is not prepared to pay the political and financial price for credible defence, it should stop complaining about its trivial role in the world, otherwise we will continue to yap without being heard.

Political group: ELDR
The report insists on the strict application of the stability pact, which has reduced the standard of living of huge swathes of the population and, despite all the publicity it has received, has done nothing to help turn the European economy around or achieve high rates of growth. It reinforces the anti-grass roots policy of constantly higher profits with proposals which provide cover for the rampant neo-liberal economic and social policy of the ΕU and its tragic consequences. At a time when the social and economic situation is worsening and inequalities are spreading, it advocates a policy of structural reform to apportion unemployment, make flexible forms of work and job uncertainty and insecurity the rule, condemn millions of citizens to poverty, penury and marginalisation, reduce wage costs and ensure that big business keeps making bigger and better profits. It calls, for the sake of sound public finances, for faster dismantling of pension systems and full liberalisation of the markets, offering the monopolies blanket unaccountability in the process. Calls for budgetary prudence are merely an attempt to justify the constant reduction in expenditure on social protection, education, health and public utilities, while expenditure to strengthen big business remains untouched and the unfair taxes paid by the workers keep rising. We are voting against the motion because the policies of the ΕU and the Member States are incompatible with the needs of workers, farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises and are dictated by and serve the interests of big business. We stand by those in society who oppose and are fighting to overturn the insensitive economic and social policy imposed by the Stability Pact.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, as well as supporting my colleague’s proposal regarding the victims in East Timor, I would like to remind you that, a year ago, a peace process was launched in my country. I would like, through your Presidency, to ask the European Parliament firstly to support the efforts of all political forces in the promotion of dialogue between all political representatives. Secondly, I would ask this Parliament to strongly urge ETA to abandon violence for good. Thirdly, and lastly, we should agree on programmes to aid victims, the rehabilitation of prisoners and education aimed at peace in the Basque Country and Northern Ireland.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I also take the view that a series of thoroughly sensible amendments has been proposed here, but I believe that Mr Corbett has, in a number of respects, thrown the baby out with the bathwater. My first criticism concerns the matters for urgent and topical debate, something with which I have dealt for years in this House. I have observed no lack of serious and sound work done in this area as compared with any other, and I note that assertions are being made about the matters for urgent and topical debate mainly by Members who have never done any work on them. I am proud of the successes I achieved as a parliamentarian through motions on matters of urgency, helping to actually free people from wrongful imprisonment and eliminate serious violations of human rights within a matter of days, and I could call any number of witnesses to confirm this to you. It is therefore my opinion that we can introduce an additional current affairs hour; I have nothing against that. It goes without saying that we can also focus matters of urgent and topical debate more on human rights, but, as for the monthly urgent matters procedure with at least five subjects – usually between ten and fifteen are submitted, and it is only with difficulty that we can agree on five of them – that should be kept. It has proved its worth, and the results it has achieved are among this House's truly great highlights which do it such great credit. I wish furthermore to take a stand against all the motions that seek to limit the less widely spoken languages or the smaller groups, to make this House bureaucratic and centralised. To take just one small example, we are no longer to be able to express our solidarity with other Members using a lesser used language when they object to their motion not being available in it. We will have Member States which will find it difficult to get the requisite twelve Members together. I also protest as a representative of a major language... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Group of the will also be voting for this report. We believe that international cooperation is bound to benefit from research, without denying that there are also certain risks. However, in the case of China, I would also like to point out that cooperation with this country in not a one-way process with Europeans bearing their fine gifts on a golden platter – we can also learn from the Chinese. As we are going to discuss Argentina later on, I would like to remind you of something. The compass came to us from China via the Arabs, and if we had not been given the compass, we would probably not have discovered America either. We could then forget about the report on Argentina! So European culture has learnt something from China, and I hope that will continue to apply in future. Our problem with China – which has already quite rightly been pointed out and which is not limited to this one country – is human rights. With China there is also the issue of Tibet, their threatening behaviour towards Taiwan, and so on. Nevertheless, I would like to warn again using research as a political weapon, as a means of putting pressure on a country over such issues. I do not believe that works. In any case, we end up punishing the wrong people since, in general, scientists are our allies, at least in spirit. The subjects listed here are quite reasonable – health, the environment, food and so forth. Let me remind you that we are not talking about nuclear cooperation. Nor are we planning joint development of arms, no, we are considering reasonable issues of benefit to people there and also, indirectly, to us in Europe. To conclude, perhaps I could mention an idea of my own. I can well imagine that in view of China’s great importance it would make sense to have an EU-China research institute or a facility where Chinese and Europeans could work on one or more long-term projects. So Chinese and Europeans would work together on a single site, be it in China or in Europe. An experience of this kind, learning each other’s language and understanding each other’s culture, could be extraordinarily attractive and stimulating for both sides. There is no mention of this in the project, but I simply wanted to propose it here. Perhaps we could consider this when we sign our next agreement with China.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a few days ago, I was on Lake Como, admiring the beauty of this wonderful Italian lake from a boat. While I was in the boat, I met a worker, who said to me: “I am very pleased that you are going to adopt the Menrad report, which will mean that I, a worker, will be informed of the day when I will be made redundant. I will know it a long time in advance, so this is certainly good news! But why is it that workers are not informed not just of when they will be made redundant but also of when they will receive a pension, how large that pension will be and, in short, of everything it is important for workers to know about their pensions? As things stand, they receive no information at all.”

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for the report concerning the energy efficiency labelling programme for office computers. As I was telling my pensioner friend, Giuseppe Rossi, who accompanied me to the airport at Bergamo when I was leaving to come to Brussels, this regulation seeks to save energy when users go home from their offices leaving their computers switched on, by putting them into sleep mode. At the end of a long discussion and explanation of the benefits of this document, my retired friend asked me: 'Wouldn't it be simpler to make employees turn off their computers completely when they are no longer using them?' This is the question which I am still asking, Mr President.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the earthquake on 26 December virtually destroyed the city of Bam. The extent of the devastation and the resulting human suffering have deeply shocked us all. However, one positive thing has come out of this tragedy: the prompt, rapid and comprehensive assistance from all over the world, including the EU, its Member States and even the USA, which Iran accepted. Only the assistance offered by Israel was rejected. This House wishes to express its gratitude to the Commission for acting so promptly on 27 December. This shows the Iranian Government, but above all the Iranian people, how much human solidarity there is with them in their present plight, regardless of the political relations with their country. I am convinced that this is also a response to Iran’s signing of the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, thus fulfilling the international community’s expectations on this key issue. At the same time, however, there is still much cause for criticism on our part, especially on the human rights situation, although we welcome the fact that the EU/Iran human rights dialogue has commenced. I myself attended the last meeting in Brussels; it was an open dialogue, not only between the EU delegation and the Iranian side but also within the Iranian delegation itself. However, we in the European Parliament were already voicing our concerns back in autumn about the possibility of a crackdown on reformist parliamentarians in advance of the February elections. Sadly, that is exactly what happened this week: more than 80 parliamentarians and hundreds of candidates were disqualified by the Guardian Council, including the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Mirdamadi, the main interlocutor and host of a European Parliament delegation which visited in Iran, who was here with a delegation last year. I think we should make it clear that just as we show human solidarity in response to natural disasters, we must also show political solidarity with the reformist movements in Iran which – within the limited parameters that currently exist there – are pressing for more democracy and freer elections. That is an important point and I assume that the High Representative, Mr Solana, who is currently in Iran, will find the words to make this position clear. I think it would send out the wrong signal if the European Union were to carry on regardless and adopt a business as usual approach in this situation. That would be very discouraging for those who want to hold a relatively free election in February, which is just next month. What is needed now is not only solidarity with the victims in Bam but also solidarity with the reformers in Iran.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the subject of the report is ostensibly the effect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. One looks in vain to the report, however, for a serious discussion of this legally and politically quite crucial issue. I shall content myself with making two points. First of all, why do we need an EU Charter at all when we have the European Convention on Human Rights, endorsed by all the EU Member States? The answer is, because the EU as such has not endorsed the Convention. By making a simple treaty change, the EU should, however, endorse the treaty as a matter of course, and that is something also recommended in the report. When that happens, however, there will be an inevitable clash between the Court of Human Rights and the EC Court of Justice. The report’s talk of smooth cooperation is sheer nonsense, legally speaking. Secondly, the crucial part of the Charter’s agenda is about promoting the EU’s permanent expansion. The Charter is purely and simply a building block for an EU federal state. Both citizenship and a constitution are part and parcel of a federal state. As is apparent from, for example, paragraphs 7, P, X and N, the citizens of the European Union are being subjected to the EU’s federal authorities. This all constitutes destructive and outrageous interference in matters of national law, and the fact that a veil is being disgracefully drawn over this is reason enough for voting against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would also like to begin by signing up to Mr Moreira Da Silva’s fan club and thank him for an excellent job. I would also like to thank him for an excellent round table discussion yesterday evening, which I thought was level-headed and balanced and also made a great contribution to the debate. Also, I would like to express thanks for the Commission's document, which provides a very good basis. In view of the limited time available, perhaps we ought to have adopted the proposal unamended. Parliament has, however, proposed a number of amendments. I have some opinions about which aspects should be considered when we discuss systems for trading in emission rights. We have three commitments to take into account. We must ensure that climate change is reduced. We must ensure that our industry, for which this system was created, also has the opportunity to compete on equal terms. In addition, we have international commitments like the Kyoto Protocol to fulfil and maintain, and we cannot therefore change the basic rules. In order for the system to function, I think that the following six points must be complied with. The system must be simple; it must be administratively simple. We cannot create a complicated system that the participants, above all, businesses, do not understand. The system must obviously be mandatory. After all, we cannot create a playing field where some players say: ‘No, I do not want to join in right now, so I am quitting and sitting on the sidelines instead’. We have to know who will be included in the system, and it is obvious that it must involve countries and individual installations. I also think that it would have been desirable to allocate emission rights using an auction procedure. There are many views on how the allocation should proceed. The compromise now to be voted on is based on up to 95% allocation free of charge and 5% by auction during the first period, and I think that this is a good solution. This way, we have at least an element of auction, which fits better with the ‘polluter pays’ principle. It goes without saying that the emission ceiling must be binding and connected to an enforcement system. Just like the rapporteur, I think that the system should include more gases than just carbon dioxide. There has also been discussion as to whether it should be possible to carry over emission rights from year to year, and I think this is right. Enterprises that do not use up their emission rights during one year should be able to carry them over to the next year. We also need to highlight certain aspects and emphasise that this must be in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol. We cannot invent something new. Above all, I wish to urge the Council to ensure that it makes a decision on 17 October.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as has already been said, economic and financial crime significantly prejudice the financial interests of the European Union, to the tune of over EUR 1 billion each year, according to estimates. Enlargement will certainly not improve this situation, as it will further fragment the European judicial area, increase the number of administrative bodies involved in the management of Community funds and accordingly increase the risk of fraud. As we know, this fraud and crime are a long-standing concern of the European Parliament, and Article 280 of the Treaty of Amsterdam gave the Community power to take effective and equivalent measures in all the Member States. I therefore fully support the Commission's Green Paper on the establishment of a European Prosecutor with the remit of defending the Community's financial interests, and I also wholeheartedly support Mrs Theato's report. I also endorse the incorporation of a new Article 280a in the future constitutional treaty, an idea which was in fact rejected by the last intergovernmental conference, despite the support this House gave to the idea in 2000. It is most definitely necessary to create a European Prosecutor, but we need to assure his or her democratic legitimacy by providing for the European Parliament to give its assent to his or her appointment. We also need stress the need for the European Prosecutor and his or her deputies to have a statute guaranteeing their total independence from parties to any trial and the European Union’s Member States, bodies and institutions. It is also essential to guarantee the uniformity of public prosecution throughout the European legal area by affirming the mandatory prosecution principle, and by imposing strict rules for the conditional dismissal of cases. We also support the principle of a Community court responsible for preparing criminal cases, within the Court of Justice. Lastly, it will of course also be important to guarantee better coordination, indeed the best coordination possible, between the European Prosecutor and the structures of OLAF, Eurojust and Europol. As Mrs Theato has just emphasised, we have appealed to the Convention, and hope that it will take our views on board.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, as draftsman for the Industry Committee I just want to pick up on a couple of areas which I think need to be mentioned today. Aviation is without doubt one of the most exciting and stimulating industries. The opportunities for business and job creation during the last decade have played a major part in the economies of countries in Europe and worldwide. For example, aviation in the UK contributes GBP 10.2 billion a year to the UK GDP and generates and supports 380 000 indirect and induced UK jobs. It transports GBP 35 billion’s worth of UK exports, maintaining unrivalled access to the global market, and this is multiplied ten-fold across the European Community. When I began my career in the aviation industry 30 years ago, very few people could afford to fly. But today, with the liberalisation of the market, flying for most people has become a way of life. The report covers a number of areas and outlines fairly accurately the way the aviation industry has developed over the last ten years. But in a number of areas there is little recognition by the Commission of the benefits the aviation industry, including aerospace, have brought and I am disappointed by the negative attitude towards the industry in this paper. One of the key factors in the success of the last 20 years has been the privatisation of the national state-owned industries which began in the 1980s. I also welcome the Commission statement that subsidies have now ceased. When we look at the choice of routings and so on for the consumer, air fares have come down considerably over the last few years. Fares from the UK are amongst some of the lowest, showing what effect having three major carriers operating out of one country can have on competition and pricing. This has produced the real benefits and other countries need to take a look at this. The report outlines at some length the expansion in capacity which has taken place in the European aviation industry, particularly across the north Atlantic, but that is obviously quite a complicated issue. I fully accept that there are challenges which need to be addressed such as problems with congestion, in particular air traffic control. However, I believe that the Commission has a responsibility to put forward more balanced views which do not undermine the value and success of an industry which has made an enormous contribution, not only to the countries of the European Union but worldwide.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of myself and my fellow MEPs, I wish to thank Mr Perry for having been a good candidate in this election. As you observed, Mr Perry is one of the foremost champions of good administration. I should also like to see added to the minutes the fact, which I also want above all to express to those present here, that, in our future ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, we have acquired a worthy successor to Mr Söderman. Mr Diamandouros really is someone who can continue in Mr Söderman’s footsteps, and I think I can say, on behalf of MEPs, that we shall look forward to constructive cooperation with him. We must also be grateful that we had a good supply of professional candidates. The fact that, during the current term of office, we have elected a new ombudsman also means, I believe, that my fellow MEPs are now still more familiar with the work of the ombudsman and that we are in agreement about what is to be done. Finally, a small fly in the ointment: just over half an hour ago, the Finnish press agency sent a text message about the outcome of the election. I would ask our esteemed Vice-President and everyone else to ensure that candidates and others do not become aware of important news such as this in the corridors or through text messages from press agencies, but that we, as far as possible, be able to save such news for the solemn meetings we hold in this Chamber.

Political group: ELDR