GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I voted in favour of Amendment No 19 by the Group of the (which was voted down by 235 votes, with 71 votes in favour and 11 abstentions). This amendment emphasises that inhabitants of potentially affected areas in neighbouring countries must have the same rights as people in the country in which the installation is situated, for example in the event of public consultation when loans are to be given from the Community budget. It is a matter of urgency that the Espoo Convention should be applied in practical terms. - Vidal-Quadras Roca report (A5-0442/2003) - Seppänen report (A5-0441/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to preface my few remarks by echoing comments made by other speakers in thanking Mrs Palacio for the work that she has done on this report. It is not merely that she is not proposing any amendments – although that is an example that some rapporteurs might follow with advantage, rather it is because she has recognised the overriding importance of taking this legislation forward and putting it on the statute book. As has been mentioned this evening, e-commerce and online business are developing very rapidly and it is very important that we put in place a legislative framework in Europe within which it can develop and flourish. Indeed, as Mrs Wallis said, you must remember it is not only within Europe. It is actually a global industry and it is around the world that we want to see a proper framework established. It is always easy to be wise after the event and no doubt if we do proceed apace we may not achieve a 100% satisfactory outcome. It is one of the interesting characteristics of the Community system of legislation that it is relatively easy to bring forward amending legislation. This can be done quickly if necessary, as Mr Lehne pointed out. So there is no reason to delay. Speed on this occasion is of the essence. It is important that we are not distracted from setting a framework within which e-commerce can develop for the benefit of both business and the consumer. Professor MacCormick said that there seems to be a very great deal of agreement about the need to go forward without amending this proposal. One of my colleagues in another parliament, of which I have the privilege to be a Member, always says ‘the one way of identifying things when you are wrong is when everybody is in agreement about it’. On this occasion I do not believe we are wrong to approach this matter in that way and I hope this Parliament will agree with me with a big majority.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the threat of a punishment must always be so credible that the punishment does not need to be carried out. The massive military presence around Iraq, and Bush's rhetoric, have finally had their effect on Saddam. Suddenly he is cooperating with the inspections and destroying weapons he said he did not have. It is therefore naive to think that Saddam could have been called to order with diplomatic pleas alone. Apart from Saddam, Bush himself has unfortunately begun to believe in the military threat to such a degree that he feels he can no longer find a way out of it. Withdrawing a quarter of a million servicemen from the Iraq region while Saddam is still in charge is a disgrace for the American president that he wants to prevent in whatever way he can. To this end he is even trying to bribe members of the Security Council, in particular to make possible an attack in the near future. Bush and Blair have now become the prisoners of their own rhetoric and their diplomatic inability to mobilise sufficient support. With no green light from the Security Council, all that remains for them is the choice between two evils: to do nothing and consequently lose face or to take military action outside the UN with all the negative consequences that entails. A unilateral military intervention will lead to unprecedented instability and seriously impede the reconstruction of Iraq. While Saddam was himself destroying the rockets in Iraq, he was placing a bomb under the UN, NATO and the EU, enabled to do so by Western leaders acting irresponsibly. Since the fall of the Wall, the EU Member States have above all been pursuing their own interests and prestige and very little has come of a common foreign policy. European policy must consist of maintaining the pressure on Saddam and certainly there must be no headlong rush to war. We must be specific about what compliance we are expecting of the tyrant within a timeframe that the inspectors consider reasonable. Only the UN can ensure that Saddam obeys, and that the punishment does not need to be carried out.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too should like to thank the Commissioner for the statement he has made. Whilst he, the past few years, has become well-versed in the field of epidemics and animal diseases, the big question is: What have we learnt from them? One of the Commission's most important conclusions with regard to the fight against FMD was that the external borders have to be protected. What has been done about this conclusion? When I enter, let us say, Amsterdam or Dublin, I can still see a major difference in comparison with, to take one example, the United States of America. In my view, control procedures have hardly changed over the past few years. I could be wrong, but I should like to hear from the Commissioner what specific measures have been taken. Why is it that I read in the paper that at Schiphol in Amsterdam, disinfectant mats have been put in place, while this is not being done anywhere else in Europe? Why is it that entirely different measures are being taken in Belgium? What official recommendations does the Commission give the Member States and how is this advice being acted upon? Imports from Thailand and other countries have been suspended. This weekend, there were rumours in the Dutch press that chicken meat from those countries would enter the European Union after all via a side entrance, namely via the new acceding countries. Is this true or not? Mrs Roth-Behrendt has already spoken about the need for further research, vaccines and testing methods, among other things. The point is that this Parliament has given the Commission the opportunity of using this extra money twice in the past two years. I am not talking about the resources in Category 3 for research, but extra resources in Category 1a of the agricultural budget. The Commission has chosen not to spend them. Why not, despite the fact that the self-same Commissioner has declared in this plenary that that would be the case? The Commission has failed to meet a request from the budgetary authority, and I should like to know why that is? Crisis management: the Commission has already stated that there is an emergency plan. I gather that there are indeed certain plans afoot, but what is the situation as regards human health? The flu medicine that could help the public is now available to a limited extent. Has the Commission consulted the Member States on how it will be used in the different countries if there are inadequate supplies of this medicine in certain other countries? Finally, a word about the OIE. Trade depends on trust and many aspects cannot be monitored by the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin alone, which is dependent on the information that countries pass on to the OIE. It has now transpired that Indonesia, Vietnam and possibly China, have probably waited many months before informing the OIE. What does the Commission intend to do in this context in order to enhance the provision of information, and to ensure that trading can take place under fair conditions, with no risk of our suddenly being faced with illegal imports of products of this kind?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, because so many questions have unfortunately remained unanswered today, I should like to ask a number of further questions and request that the Council and the Commission answer these. Is it true – and this is a matter for the Commission and the Council – that representatives of the Commission and the Council have been working, under the chairmanship of the Americans, on Echelon-compatible European telecommunications standards, including interception options, and this within the framework of ILETS, a so-called institute? This then provided us with the notorious Infopol documents. How great is the damage which has already been caused to the European economy? Are there companies in addition to Thomson and the Airbus consortium which have sustained damage? What will the Council and the Commission do, and how will they deal with those Member States of the European Union who are spying on their partners in the Union in order – as, in fact, has been admitted – to protect their economic well-being? How will the Commission and the Council respond to the answer from the Americans, which was read out today and which clearly contradicts what, for example, ex-CIA director Mr Woolsey has stated?

Political group: PSE
Transatlantic relations are now in stormy waters. The dingy of the European Union is struggling hard to cope with the waves of American power display. The steel crisis is mainly political. President Bush is backed internally by his electorate. Retribution or a political reaction were not likely from the outside world, which opened up the opportunity to pass on the problem of unemployment to the outside world. The European Union dingy is now wearily following a course of legal procedures. We must take full advantage of all the options and means available to us within the WTO. Our retaliation must be convincing. But even so, it does not give much hope of a positive outcome in the short term. Our boat should be big enough to weather the storms. But we also need good helmsmanship. A political crisis does require a political answer, and we must deliberate upon this. Meanwhile, I should like to urge the Commission, and above all, Commissioner Liikanen, to take political action internally. We must build a solid ship. We hardly have a steel policy left, let alone a steel strategy. We are on an ocean without any rescue boats for the workers. If there is anything to learn from the steel crisis, it is that European steel policy should be restored.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, given the time constraints and also the feeling in my group that the ECB has essentially been doing a good job in difficult circumstances, I would like to concentrate on some remaining structural issues concerning communications and accountability. As Mr Duisenberg will remember, Parliament has repeatedly adopted a transparency package advocating five separate measures to increase transparency. I am delighted to report that the ECB has so far agreed three of them, and we must give them credit for this. We have had no problems in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in inviting members of the governing Council to appear before us. Last year, we had eleven such appearances. Secondly, the ECB began to publish regular forecasts or, as they prefer to call them, 'projections' in the December 2000 monthly bulletin, and that was a very welcome development. In addition, econometric models are now published in the working paper series. It would be nice if they were in more user-friendly form, for example, on CD-ROM, but there is progress. The two remaining measures that Parliament is again calling for are a publication of a 'Beige Book' setting out conditions in each Member State and publication of summary minutes giving the views for and against interest rate changes. In addition, this year we are asking the ECB Governing Council to deal with a specific problem it has faced in a couple of recent interest rate changes. There was confusion in the markets about what was perceived as an unpredictable decision and the marketplace was clearly not prepared for that decision. Indeed, some people went as far as to say it was arbitrary, so we are calling for the publication of votes on an anonymous basis.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I thank the Commission for the brave proposal for a Regulation and congratulate Mrs Peijs for her long-term commitment to this matter, without which we probably would have been unable to convince the Commission and the Council of the need for this legislative initiative. In fact, I also support all amendments which Mrs Peijs has tabled on behalf of our group. Despite this, it is regrettable that some three years following the launch of the electronic euro and on the eve of 1 January 2002, we are still having to work on a piece of legislation of this kind. It is beyond me why the banks, which otherwise find each other so promptly and efficiently in a cross-border context and are united in effective professional organisations, should be forced by law to organise themselves properly and to automate in order to be able to work more cost-effectively in the internal market, and no longer to discriminate. The binding nature of the non-discrimination rule will raise a few eyebrows, but there is no alternative: leaving things as they are would be worse, for we would then accept what some small businesses and consumers fear, namely that the benefits of the euro will pass them by and that cross-border payments will continue to cost some EUR 20 each. As we cannot afford to lose the confidence of the consumers or of small businesses, we have no choice. There is one concern I have, and I should like to ask the Commissioner a question in that connection. How can we prevent this Regulation from being seized by the banks as an excuse to increase the charges for domestic payments, and how does the Commission itself view this proposal? Is it being regarded as a big stick in order to get a last-minute gentlemen’s agreement out of the banks or, Commissioner, do you intend to continue to move towards a Regulation? I hope that you as Commissioner remain resolute.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on a point of order, I have here a report which appeared in the British newspaper The Independent concerning a meeting which appears to have taken place between yourself and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. According to this report, you left the meeting and then briefed the press on Her Majesty's political opinions. This has caused a certain amount of concern and distress in political circles in the UK, because as, I am sure you know, the protocol of such meetings is that they are private and should not be commented on. I would like to give you this opportunity to let us know what you understood the protocol of that meeting to be, and perhaps also to clarify what you said to the press afterwards.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr Fatuzzo is not alone here, which is nice for him. We Members of Parliament are not normally late going to lunch, but I wanted to explain why I voted against Mrs Nicholson of Winterbourne’s and Mr Schröder’s reports. Of course, I want to welcome these countries, the Czech Republic and Romania, to the EU with open arms, but I wanted to protest about Parliament’s attitude to nuclear power. It is not our task to advise independent countries on how they are to manage their affairs regarding energy, and our own credibility suffers if we discuss the issue of nuclear power time and time again in a populist manner that ignores the facts. Numerous international study trips have been made to Temelin, for example, and it meets all the international criteria. Why should this brand new nuclear power station be demolished? Romania, on the other hand, has coal-fired power stations that are 40 years old – they are nearly as old as me – so it is only reasonable for them to build the modern Canadian nuclear plant there. I must just say that if people in the candidate countries are reading our thoughts on nuclear energy they are almost certainly choking on the coal dust and their food is going down the wrong way as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my intervention I will attempt to summarise the opinions of my Italian colleagues, Mr Costa and Mr Nisticò, too, who were previously down to speak, but are unable to be here due to the postponement of this debate. As the Italian delegation, too, we wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Giannakou-Koutsikou, on her excellent work. As many Members have reminded us, we are dealing with the difficulty of finding a balance, which, nevertheless, has been achieved. The difficulty stems from the different experiences and policies of the Member States. At the same time, we must also initiate different types of relations between the Union as a whole and the activities of the individual states, and between the principle of subsidiarity and the need – which has also, rightly, been expressed – for the Union to equip itself with a common policy on this phenomenon which is a real concern for our present, but also for our future. From the point of view of values, I am convinced of this and I totally agree with the ideas expressed by Mr Coelho, and therefore I will not repeat them. Frankly, I am uneasy listening to some positions that send this message to young people: get used to living with ecstasy, get used to living with valium, i.e. get used to a life full of drugs. I refuse to accept that politics should give way upon this issue. I said that the report is excellent, not just because it rightly puts the two elements of the matter back into the spotlight – a combined action to reduce demand and to reduce supply – but also, may I say, because of the frankness with which Mrs Giannakou-Koutsikou criticises what is still insufficient in the Commission proposal, both from a financial and economic point of view – we cannot state the importance of a battle and then not follow through in financial terms – and from the point of view, shall we say, of the political half-heartedness regarding the initiatives that the States still have not made. Therefore, this excellent idea to convene an “inter-pillar” Council is one we should support. In conclusion, I would just like to emphasise two points that, in our experience as Italians, are particularly important and significant: firstly, the importance of supporting basic scientific research as well so that we gain a greater understanding of the phenomenon, and, if possible, receive early warning of what the alleged drugs of the future will be, especially finding out the devastating effects of synthetic drugs; secondly, the importance of involving in these actions those principally concerned, those who are in the front line every day, who help drug addicts, that is, the experiences of treatment centres. I think that these should be supported and encouraged. Mrs Giannakou-Koutsikou willingly accepted this request from the Italian delegation. I think that, in future, when we address this subject again, it will be useful to come back to the point of who is managing and helping drug addicts today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I want to comment on both of the Commissioner's statements. I welcome the proposal on services. It is a great pity that it does not cover financial services. Unless there has been a last-minute change, these have been left out of the general proposal, which is unfortunate because the general principles of country of origin and mutual recognition, which are found in the service proposal, are applicable in financial services, and it would have been good to have that reinforced by their inclusion in this proposal. The main thing I want to comment on is the Commission's decision today to take the Ecofin Council to court over its suspension of the Stability Pact. This is a serious row, and it has just got a lot bigger today. It is a graphic illustration of the problems you inevitably get when you try to run a single currency across 12 different countries. Those tensions will continue and only get worse, because it really is impossible to run a single economic policy which suits every single one of those 12 economies. Those tensions will get more – not less – significant with the expansion of the eurozone and with the enlargement of the European Union. I hope there is a satisfactory resolution to this problem, but at the moment it is another serious blow to the euro's credibility that the rules are not being enforced by the ECOFIN finance ministers. We were told that these rules were fundamental to making the euro work, the Commission is being forced into this drastic action and the wrangle is set to go on for a great deal longer. In the light of the circumstances we have seen today, it is no wonder that people in the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden are all saying a big 'no' to the euro.

Political group: PPE-DE
President Prodi, today you have presented the Commission’s five-year programme, and it has many objectives that we endorse. It is a programme based on real-life situations and issues, and it is therefore right to put concrete measures aside for the moment and focus on the major issues. In my view, Mr Prodi, judging from the text and the document that you had sent to us, one subject that is very important to both of us has been given secondary importance, and that is solidarity, not so much at international level as at internal level. The Archbishop of Milan, Monsignor Carlo Maria Martini, is calling upon all politicians, in particular those like you and me, President Prodi, for whom the cultural and historic principle behind their presence in politics is the principle of the active involvement of Catholics in politics, to reconsider a development process, which, in addition to economic profit, takes the marginalised and those left behind by society very much into account. It is of the utmost importance to address the issue of those who cannot keep up, one which reminds us of how difficult and complicated it is to establish progress indicators and how inadequate it is to use the parameter of per capita income alone. It also reminds us of the need for a new growth model, one that is firmly rooted in the culture of the Catholics who are involved in social problems, who see, in the civil community and the social interaction that that must be encouraged and facilitated among the public, the most natural instruments for building solidarity. The fundamental element for the development of each person – his freedom, which comes before economic gain – is thus enhanced. This social freedom, which becomes manifest in initiatives favouring the poor, gives excellent results in terms of social justice and stability. Mr President, public institutions must not accept only the economic criterion. They must focus on service to people and commitment to achieving freedom for each individual, without forgetting, naturally, that all this cannot and must not conflict with the need to create business, to invest and risk, and in an ordered and focused system, entrepreneurs are able to make a substantial contribution to social growth solidarity. In the age of globalisation, which we do want to facilitate with a framework of specific rules that will provide guarantees to the economic operators and consumers, the European Commission cannot forget solidarity, and must call for its implementation through the use of all of man’s spiritual resources in his relations with his fellow man. Our heritage has taught us that politics must have a heart. We hope that the White Paper and the actions of you and your Commission will put this into practice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before leaving for Strasbourg, the pensioners who took me to the airport asked me “Is there going to be a debate about beer on Friday morning?” I replied “Yes, certainly.” “Well, you have to give an explanation of vote and say that we pensioners are in favour of the production and development of beer.” We are in favour not just because ten years ago, the Pensioners’ Party put forward as candidate for Rome’s mayor the model Solveig Tubing, who was born in Berlin and was a great connoisseur and lover of beer, but also because my own personal studies on beer show that drinking it makes you younger. I know that welfare institutions and governments are against developing beer, because this means that they have to pay out pensions for longer, but as representative of the Pensioners’ Party, I am in favour.

Political group: PPE-DE