GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I would like to congratulate my respected colleague General Morillon on his report. As previous speakers have already said, it is being considered at an opportune time. I am a strong supporter of the establishment of an EU defence policy because I believe it is as much a fundamental part of European integration as the single currency. Additionally, if we are to learn any lessons from the current debacle and disarray in which the European Union finds itself, then the European Convention and the subsequent IGC have to consider the arguments advanced at the heart of this report. I strongly support the EU-US transatlantic alliance, but not in its present form, where we are simply expected to endorse US foreign policy objectives, even when we disagree with them. A new equilibrium must be established on the basis of a true partnership in which both parties shape the agreed policy objectives. However, we have to accept that there is absolutely no chance of influencing the United States when we are so dependent on them. We have, as General Morrillon suggests, to 'share the burden' also. We must also acknowledge that an EU defence policy must be underpinned by a coherent common foreign and security policy. I do not believe that our current difficulties over our divided response to the Iraq crisis should give rise to pessimism and paralysis. If anything, it should provide the political imperative to ensure that it never happens again. If we really want to exercise influence on the world stage, then EU leaders must agree on merging the functions of the High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations, served by a single administration, adequately resourced, and using all our instruments in the policy areas – such as trade, development, environment, justice and home affairs – to support clear political objectives at the heart of our foreign policy. It is to be hoped that as we move towards the creation of defence structures, we will not forget the importance of conflict prevention, and also of continued investment in our policy on democratisation and human rights, because it is abuses in those areas that give rise to conflict in many parts of the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is a period when we confirm the end to historic divisions. Firstly I would like to say a word about Cyprus and urge a positive response from the Turkish Cypriot authorities to the Annan plan. I realise that Mr Denktash is sadly still very unwell, but it must be possible to signal agreement on this plan as the basis for negotiation. I know the majority of Turkish Cypriots want that positive response. Secondly, I urge support for Amendment No 24 to the report, tabled by the Group. This calls for the transformation of the accession monitoring process into a system of mutual peer review applicable to all Member States, old and new. This would ensure respect for democratic accountability, integrity of public administration, non-discrimination, civil liberties and the rule of law. We need to invest money, time and effort in our systems of democracy and justice throughout the European Union. The existing 15 Member States are certainly not perfect and we need to invest at least as much as we do in our agriculture. We spend a lot of time talking about agriculture and structural funds. We need to spend at least as much time talking about the underpinnings of democracy and justice in all our Member States, through mutually constructive evaluation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, quite frankly, it is difficult at this point to add anything new; apart from anything else because the situation is rather odd. As other Members have said, we fully support the Commission's proposals. Let us all pull together, so to speak, so that we can present a united front to the party we really have to convince, which is against this proposal as it stands. It is an extremely reasonable proposal, which is not intended to distort the initial position. Ultimately, we are calling solely for this instrument which is so very important – as the rapporteur, Mr Watts, made clear – more in terms of the culture of safety than in terms of efficiency: this black box can genuinely change behaviour, it can force people to realise that the issue of safety exists and that they must be properly equipped. The aim is therefore to introduce, as far as is possible, a new culture of safety, and to define a different two-pronged structure for financial compensation. Moreover, I feel that Parliament's proposal gives much more consideration to the principle of subsidiarity, which gives each Member State different options to choose from. Therefore, basically, there is no great dispute. What is truly incomprehensible is how the Council can fail to realise the importance and political consequence of a taking a timely decision on this matter. It has already been said that we cannot allow issues which are, when all is said and done, so minor, further to delay an initiative which would carry great political weight, not just because it would put an end to and remedy a situation which has caused great alarm but, in particular, because it would show that, for once, we are being more far-sighted. We would not want, one day, even before we succeed in launching this measure, the accidents of lots of little Erikas which, I am sorry to say, continue to take place in our waters, to cause another major disaster. We do not want this to happen and we call upon the Council to act wisely.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today the issue of immigration crosses all areas in our European societies, from the situation of legal immigrants to that of illegal immigrants, from the right of asylum to the right of freedom of movement, from socio-economic and cultural rights to political rights. In the majority of EU States, figures on the granting of refugee status and traditional immigration channels are falling systematically. On the other hand, the figures for overall immigration have remained stable in recent years, proving that restrictive policies on immigration and visas have succeeded only in increasing the number of illegal immigrants. On a daily basis, men, women and children die in the attempt to enter illegally into a Europe which has become a real Fortress. For the most part they fall victim to smugglers and traffickers. Unfortunately, their ordeal continues once they have entered European States as, without regular papers, they can be freely exploited and forced to suffer intolerable living conditions. We should point out that some legal immigrants have been made illegal by restrictive legislation. Some of these have been living in Europe for over twenty years. They can no longer be expelled, nor can their situation be regularised. What means is available to them to earn a living and support their families? The solutions laid down in the proposed initiatives replicate these repressive measures and grounds for exclusion. They give rise to tragedies such as those in Dover, Gibraltar or the situation of those immigrants without regular papers in Spain, Belgium and France who are on hunger strike in order to obtain recognition. Who is really responsible? Not only do these proposals not meet these requirements, but they even go so far as to challenge the right of asylum or the right of family reunion. While it is clear that we must staunchly fight the organised networks trafficking in human beings, it is unjust to condemn natural or legal persons who, in good faith, assist asylum seekers fleeing conflict, famine and the horrors caused by economic and democratic deficits. These initiatives, therefore, lump all categories together in an inadmissible and dangerous fashion. While the proposed amendments limit some of the damage, we reject the initiatives and would vehemently urge the authors to go back to the drawing board. It is only possible to combat illegal immigration within the framework of an overall Community policy that is clear and that respects the dignity of human beings based on genuine respect for fundamental rights and based on a new North-South relationship. Finally we would point out that the best weapon to combat discrimination and human exploitation is to acknowledge rights and thus to regularise their status.

Political group: Verts-ALE
EL ) Mr High Representative, you have spoken to us of the progress made to date in relation to the decisions taken at Helsinki. Some of us here are passionately in favour of creating a distinctly European security organisation to defend peace in the world. Of course we recognise the role of the Security Council, as the Helsinki resolutions clearly state, in maintaining international peace and security. However, we note that you have said nothing to us about the fact that the role of the Security Council, as referred to at Helsinki, was contested recently. The point is: does the political will exist to grant real administrative autonomy to this mechanism, which will cover the entire spectrum of Petersberg decisions? What about the infrastructures? Is there some sort of provision which will allow the system as a whole to have this administrative autonomy? Secondly, what will happen to the European defence industry which, after all, comes under the more general activities relating to this system? Will current programmes continue to be implemented? Finally, if the Treaty needs to be amended, how do you think this amendment will be implemented, following the report to be submitted in Feira? How will it be incorporated into the more general procedure for amending the institutional framework of the Treaty and how do you think this will fit in with the possibility of a system of qualified majority voting? Has any thought been given to the matter? Has it been discussed? And to what extent has collaboration between you and the relevant Commissioner brought about concrete results and created some sort of framework strategy as to how you and the Commissioner hope this system will prove truly efficient? IN THE CHAIR: INGO FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Prior to the Swedish referendum on EU entry in 1994, all the parties working for EU membership stated that cohabitation issues, marriage legislation and abortion issues did not come within the competence of the EU. They promised to direct their efforts to ensuring that these issues remained areas in which strictly national legislation applied, without the involvement of the EU. We stand firm by that pledge to the Swedish electorate. We believe that national legislation is very much better in this area than common EU legislation. We observe how other Swedish parties have abandoned that pledge and are ready to transfer these issues to EU level. Were that to happen, it would be to the detriment of Swedes and be in danger of conflicting with Swedish custom and tradition. There is no obvious need for coordination, and the best adjusted legislation will be achieved if the various national parliaments within the EU are allowed to design the legislation in this area. EU aid policy too must respect individual countries’ legislation. We share the Swedish view of the right to abortion but, out of respect for third countries, we have voted against those parts of the Junker report that demand free abortion. The report also focuses helpfully upon the serious health problems present in the developing countries, where EU aid policy has an important role.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Rothe, what we need is a clear definition of what is renewable. Plastic is not a renewable resource, nor is peat. We run the risk of losing the confidence of Europe’s citizens who want to buy green electricity if we sow confusion by coming up with ridiculous definitions. We need clear national objectives. I do not agree with Mr Beysen; a liberal should be in favour of the fewest possible distortions in the market. If we do not have clear objectives, there will be distortion between those countries which do something to promote renewable energies and those countries which do not do enough. Let us now turn to the support instruments. The Commissioner agrees with Parliament’s position that it is too early to decide, at this stage, between the two instruments currently in place, i.e. firstly the system of green certificates and secondly the system of guaranteed prices. Since the plea by the Advocate-General before the Court of Luxembourg, there is now less risk of seeing guaranteed prices foiled by state-aid regulations. But there may still be a threat from seeking compatibility with the internal market. I believe that a politician is someone who needs to anticipate problems. I do not want electricians to cause interference between the two systems and to sow confusion and doubt amongst investors in Europe by short-circuiting and manipulating the system of guaranteed prices. Not only must guaranteed prices be tolerated, they must be protected by the directive. That is what politics is all about: making competition possible between the two instruments by protecting guaranteed prices and harmonising certificate-related issues. Renewable energies is a subject which unites the citizens of Europe at a time when Europe is finding it difficult to get its citizens to support greater integration. I believe that a strong policy on renewable energies is a symbol of the Europe of tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Mrs Maes has already put the point across very well. What really matters is that we can specifically discuss the Afghan refugees under the heading of ‘human rights’. However, we all appreciate the enormity of the problems there have been in Europe in connection with foot-and-mouth. It is therefore of major importance for the European Parliament to make its views known concerning foot-and-mouth. We could combine both topics. We could discuss the Afghan refugees under the ‘human rights’ heading and foot-and-mouth disease under a separate heading in the topical and urgent debate. In that connection, I would like to make an urgent appeal to our Socialist MEPs to leave the agenda as it stands.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have three comments to make on what has been said during this debate. The first relates to something which you reminded us of this morning, Mrs Schreyer. Compared with many national budgets, the increase in the Community is somewhat higher but, in relation to expenditure ratios, it is still very low and sets an excellent example for many national budgets. We must tell the public that, if the national foreign or other secretaries of state keep handing work over to be carried out at European level, such as the whole Balkans programme, then we must also bear in mind that this work requires money and that funds must be made available. My second comment relates to the common foreign and security policy. Tremendous progress was made here during the 1990s. During the conflict in Bosnia, Europe was still not in a position to speak with one voice: one country was purported to be on the side of the Serbs, another to be on the side of the Croats. We almost seemed to be back in the policy of alliances of the 19th century. Now, at the end of this century, at the end of the 1990s, Europe is speaking with one voice, Europe is the biggest civil reconstructor in the Balkans, bigger than the United States, and is doing a good job; through its budget and its policy it really did help to make peaceful revolution possible in Serbia. This needed to be said quite clearly about European policy at the end of this financial year and after this decade of confusion in the Balkans. Foreign states are becoming more important to us and we hope that, with the new posts provided, the Commission will do the job which we expect it to do. We are being up front with our praise and you may be sure that we shall seek to exercise strict control in the future. There is much talk of post-Nice. Nice was yet again the scene of national haggling for individual states. We have overcome this to a considerable degree in foreign policy and I hope in the forthcoming budget debates that we shall take more decisions of substance and spend more time on the problems and less time haggling over national interests in this budget.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will be very brief for I fully agree with what Chairman Wurtz has just said. I would especially like to stress how important it is – and I am addressing Chairman Barón Crespo and Chairman Poettering, in particular – that, this time, Parliament adopts a resolution which is absolutely unambiguous. I feel that we, at least, have all the tools necessary to be able to speak with one voice and that it is important that we do so. My group would also prefer the vote on the resolution to take place on Wednesday, as Chairman Wurtz has suggested.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Mr García Margallo has drafted his report in the tradition of the Lisbon approach. It is a balanced report which, more so than the guidelines themselves, is seeking to strike a balance between financial-economic and social and employment-directed policy. Like others, I think it is unfortunate that we were unable to discuss Mr Schmid's report on the employment guidelines today, for it is precisely this integrated approach that is of great importance. Something which I would particularly like to address is the report's plea to set up a structural reforms action plan. Like others, including the Commissioner, I am critical about setting up yet another plan. I do think that the underlying analysis is right, namely that so little comes of the recommendations from previous global guidelines and of the Lisbon agenda because the Member States do not actually implement those recommendations and because the Commission does not have any actual power of enforcement in these matters. I share this view. Very often, many fine words are spoken and nothing is done about them. Furthermore, the same government leaders who agree on this are, in Brussels, often those who are reluctant to actually implement the attendant legislation. What I would welcome is for the plan for a task force, which was set up during the previous European Summit and which mainly aims to implement policy, to be coupled to this idea of structural reforms. I think that this idea fits in very well with what must be done by this task force under the leadership of Wim Kok, namely to draw the attention of the Member States to the need for implementing the strategy. In my view, the economic rigidities which Mr Margallo mentioned are precisely those things that fall within this scope of financial-economic and social and employment policy. I should like to mention a few points. Flexible employment patterns with certainties for workers; increase in labour productivity with a better quality of work; less rigid working and opening times, but also workers’ having more say about their hours; intensification of the knowledge potential, but lifelong learning for all, and all age categories; greater labour mobility, but with continuity of accrued rights; and the list goes on. In all those structural reforms, it is important to strike this balance and to create a basis for improvements rather than to call for protest. I think that the urgency is clear, that the direction is also clear if viewed in this context and that it is essential that those paper recommendations should be translated into real policy. Moreover, I hope that this task force can play an important part in this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur for the great care he has taken over this report. Two major factors can be identified with regard to the liberalisation process of the energy market. First of all, the liberalisation process does not proceed at the same pace in all the Member States and secondly, there is also a difference in timing within the respective Member States. Moreover, it is also worth emphasising that the way energy markets are opened up depends greatly on the geographic location of the Member State in question. For the reasons set out above, it would be preferable to adopt a pragmatic rather than a theoretical approach. The pragmatic approach is also the way forward if we want to achieve Member-State-specific liberalisation, for, in our opinion, we should not speed up the directive’s implementation but rather carry it out gradually. Against this background, it is important for the amendment tabled by our group to be approved within the Commission. This aims to force Member States to set up independent regulatory bodies that will be authorised to encourage full competition. The same amendment also aims to promote the interests of the consumers within the liberalised energy market by guaranteeing universal service provision. Finally, I would like to emphasise that our proposal on laying down a detailed schedule, in the course of which clearly defined goals would need to be accomplished, is important if we are eventually to achieve gradual, yet full, liberalisation of the energy market. Acceptance of this proposal within the plenary will put a stop to unfair competition which is currently affecting the electricity market and which is caused by liberalisation being applied in different ways within the Member States.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, for this report and her excellent display of cooperation as chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development this autumn. A viable system for statistics is an important basis for making good decisions. Statistics have to be comprehensive, reliable and consistent. The report quite clearly explains the legal basis of statistics, especially in Amendments Nos 2 and 3, which specify the Community’s share of the advance. Politically, the most important message is contained in Amendments Nos 4 and 5, which urges the practice of cross-tabulating subsidies received according to, inter alia, farm surface area. This information will be especially important when we consider the social side of agricultural subsidies. It would be difficult to support a subsidy scheme that channelled most of the aid to the large farms in the best agricultural regions. We have no data on this, but have to be content with the rumours that 80% of aid would go to 20% of farmers. Amendment No 1 emphasised the importance of statistics in connection with enlargement towards the east. This is a very important consideration that still means much work for the EU and the applicant countries. The problems over statistics for the applicant countries will not be resolved through this report. Problems have continued since the land register began to function. Embarking on eastward enlargement without any information on its effect on the budget would be political suicide. It does not help much, though, if our current data on expenditure is based on mistaken or unreliable data. The most important aspect of statistical data on the European farmer is the reference yield. When Finland became a Member, as a result of poor yield in previous years, we had to be satisfied with a figure that did not reflect the truth in normal years. These reference yields should be raised to a realistic level as soon as possible, or we should start to reconsider the whole basis of their use and the idea of a drop in the price of grain as compensation for hectarage aid. We cannot undertake to subsidise producers in regions of highest yield in Europe for years and years on account of price reductions that have sometimes taken place in the past. The most obvious answer would be to harmonise hectarage aid as closely as possible within the whole territory of the EU. Mr President, the group supports this report.

Political group: ELDR