GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague, Mrs Ghilardotti, as well as the Council and the Commission for having finally secured progress on this dossier. As with the Regulation on the Statute for a European Company a few weeks ago, and the annex on participation, we have been making more progress in the last few months than we had for years. I think that this gives us an excellent opportunity to send a clear signal to the public that, at European level, we have a concept of the company that encompasses all those that work within it, which, it must also be said, is not only a democratic right of workers, but, also, these principles of information and consultation set the right path for companies to become more efficient, more effective, non-authoritarian and participatory. In these times of globalisation, lifelong learning and the incorporation of workers into the dynamics of a company are crucial. We hope, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, that, as Mrs Ghilardotti stated very clearly in her amendments, that this is a genuine regulation. This will require two obvious and fundamental elements: firstly, that the participation of workers should take place before decisions are made, for if this is not the case, they will carry on finding things out through the papers and they will really be under the impression that the work that has been carried out here in Parliament, in Council and in the Commission is a joke. They have to be involved before decisions are made, because the press is there for everyone else. Secondly, their participation must also be a legal requirement. The exact difference between the regulation and the recommendation is that, when the regulation is violated, there can be a sanction. If there is no sanction, what we do remains purely symbolic and has no legal foundation. Representatives of the Council, we are at second reading. I would like to finish by saying that I hope that on this occasion we do not experience what has taken place on so many others, that you forget that Parliament has legislative faculties on a par with your own. I hope, therefore, that you will take good notice of Mrs Ghilardotti’s report, which is not only for her own good, but for the good of millions of citizens and workers in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would just like to endorse everything that Mr Howitt has said. Plan Colombia is promoted as a means of combating of drug production and trafficking, but since drug eradication and crop spraying started six years ago, the actual coca plantations have almost trebled, which shows that this is not an effective method. It does not work and it is also an ecological disaster. Since the drug wars started in the 80s, violence has increased in a terrible way in Colombia. Seventy-five to eighty per cent of the killings are committed by the paramilitary forces to protect big farmers and oil companies. The Colombian Government pretends that it is trying to combat paramilitarianism but in fact it is turning a blind an eye to it. It knows very well that there are clear links between the paramilitaries and the armed forces. If military equipment is increased in accordance with what Plan Colombia is proposing, it will clearly reach the paramilitaries. It will increase the massacres; it will increase the disappearances; it will increase the violations committed against ordinary innocent people. Any plan which includes a military element is not a solution for Colombia. It just exacerbates the situation. Many Member States have a major problem with the military component and it is very cynical to say that we want to help the social area when clearly this plan is a military plan.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President. I do not wish to encroach on members’ time, but you reported at the beginning that you are now instituting Treaty infringement proceedings against France. But the argument does not relate solely to France, it relates to Germany as well. In the compromise forged between France and the Commission and Great Britain, it was agreed that the tests should also be used for diagnostic purposes and that English beef from this export programme should be labelled. These requirements were also imposed by Germany. My question is this: if you institute Treaty infringement proceedings without waiting for the results of the tests, when the tests have not even been carried out – we are still waiting for a proposal from Commissioner Byrne – and if the logistics for labelling have still not been set up, how then can you expect France and Germany to lift their import restrictions with this state of affairs? Should the Commission not put the conditions in place and monitor them first, so that this can be done? Mr President, we await further explanation from the Commission on the matter tomorrow. Perhaps then we can go into it in greater depth.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in its proposals to the Council of Ministers, the Commission has not set out the prices of products and subsidies, as it falsely claims it has done; in our opinion, it simply wants to remind us of the prices and subsidies which will be in force for the period from 2000-2001 in accordance with existing regulations, and at the very most, to amend some monthly increments to the intervention prices of any products to which this system still applies. We should like to take this opportunity, however, to note that first: producer prices and subsidies have been frozen for numerous agricultural products for twelve consecutive years, as is the case with sheepmeat and goatmeat, whereas for other products they have been falling due to the constant increase in production costs, thereby reducing net agricultural incomes, as the Eurostat figures also show. The question therefore is: what are the farmers doing about this? Secondly, eroding or even abolishing the intervention system will leave farmers at the mercy of traders, who buy from producers at derisory prices and then often resell at substantially higher prices. As a result, while nominal producer prices have fallen, often quite sharply, consumer prices have risen. In other words, both producers and consumers are being bled dry in the name of protection, which is what the European Union claims it is doing. The question is what will farmers and consumers do about this? Will they step up their fight? Thirdly, low quotas and the resultant extortionate fines are eating up the subsidies for the 1999 harvest. Thus the subsidies end up becoming a white elephant. A blatant example is that of oil, which also concerns my country, and in particular my native island of Lesbos. Despite declarations that the 1998-1999 subsidy would be GRD 460, producers were only paid GRD 330, one year later. The same applies to cotton where, although the minimum price is EUR 101 per 100 kilos, Greek producers will be paid less than EUR 65 because of the co-responsibility levy. We have the following comments to make on the issues addressed in the report: as regards cereals, we disagree with the reduction in the monthly increments of the intervention price, which should have been increased. Also, it must be said that this approach is further eroding the intervention system and, as with other products, it will apparently be abolished altogether for cereals. We also disagree with the monthly increment being paid in November, since harvest time in Greece is in June. And similarly with rice, we recommend that intervention commence on 1 October or November and not on 1 April because otherwise, our producers are at the mercy of greedy profiteering traders for six months.... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work. I was not one of those who agreed with the consensus in committee about the tabling of no amendments. That does not mean I did not appreciate her very solid work and I would also like to thank her very warmly for taking to heart the concerns that I expressed in committee, particularly on the liability of intermediary service providers, codes of conduct and the participation of consumers. Without consumer confidence, e-commerce is going nowhere. This is fundamental, horizontal legislation that is going to be dealing with the whole Internet and its commercial viability. Unless we have consumer confidence and can deal with illegal content speedily without resorting to lengthy court cases, we will not have the kind of ground rules which citizens and consumers need and require. There has already been reference here tonight to the need for revision. Even before we adopt the directive we are talking about revision and I think that is very wise. Some of the concerns that have been expressed here tonight, particularly about dealing with illegal content and consumer acceptance, need to be being already pursued by the Commission before we adopt this fully as a European directive. I would like finally to thank again the rapporteur for taking on board the serious concerns that we expressed in committee.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, allow me to start by congratulating Mrs González Álvarez. She really is most persistent, because we had a very good report at second reading as it was, but she was determined to incorporate more proposed amendments and I really must congratulate her on succeeding in doing so. Parliament has asserted itself against the Council once again. The introduction of this sort of monitoring scheme is just one of the many steps on the path towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol. Reducing greenhouse gases by 8% in comparison with 1990 is therefore the main objective between now and the year 2012. The dramatic change in the climate has been noticeable here in Strasbourg over the past two days and is far greater than we assumed. It will therefore come as no surprise if we adopt this report unanimously tomorrow, as will certainly be the case, and that the Council and Parliament have been able to find a common position so quickly. This joint monitoring scheme is the first of its kind and I think that its success or failure will decide whether or not we opt to introduce other similar schemes. We have taken recourse to a three-part strategy in order to reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption: environmental agreements with the car industry, a system of tax incentives and a system of labelling for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. But despite all these efforts, directives and joint measuring schemes, we should not delude ourselves: we are unlikely to achieve the target objective of reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels. Some experts are advising us to try and stabilise emissions at present levels. That may well be pessimistic but if we consider that the number of cars on the road is continuing to rise in the 14 Member States, oh excuse me, I meant 15; we Austrians often have to stop and ask ourselves if there are 14 or 15 Member States, but there are in fact still 15, and if we consider enlargement to the east and if we consider that people in China and India also want to live as we do, then we should make no mistake: it will be difficult to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases or CO2 and we should therefore make every effort to stabilise them at the very least. Despite all the pessimism, introducing a pan-European monitoring system for CO2 emissions will not do any harm. Let us try yet again with one small step at a time and perhaps the House will sit in 2005, when we need to examine the initial results, and complain that perhaps we did not do enough today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is about the reconciliation of nations. It is also a legal instrument to guarantee this reconciliation. We know that reconciliation is only possible if justice is done. This insight helps form the basis for the international tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia: do justice, not as a victor but from a supra-national viewpoint and with a view to living together in future. Our group, therefore, warmly welcomes the fact that an international court has now been set up with a more universal authority which complements national courts where they fall short. Member States and candidate countries of the European Union should, of course, lead the way. This includes the thirteenth candidate country, Mr President, Turkey. One can hardly suppress a smile if one talks about Turkey in this context. I hope that the Commission and Council succeed in exerting pressure on other countries in order to achieve ratification of the EC Treaty. Financial support is needed to enable poor countries to take part in these court activities. This will play an important preventative role, irrespective of political considerations of an amoral nature and immune to political blackmail. Big criminals can no longer expect that their crimes will go unpunished. The Milosevices, the Karadices, the Mladices of this world, they will know. The international criminal court constitutes a breakthrough in politics. It confirms that politics is not a question of power where legislation serves to cover our embarrassment, but quite the opposite, that the central role of politics is to create legislation where power is of benefit. Mr President, this Parliament will need to be acutely aware of this, also with regard to the most recent debate on Nicaragua. It is downright scandalous if matters which are totally unacceptable in terms of human rights are covered up out of party-political considerations. Mr President, I hope that this Parliament and the groups which, based on their own convictions, can muster a better position, will take a clearer stance in this respect.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, allow me to thank you very much on behalf of my delegation for your message of sympathy which you sent on behalf of the European Parliament following the catastrophe at Kitzsteinhorn to our President, Dr Klestil, our Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, and thus to all the people of Austria. Thank you also for having the flags flown at half-mast. We are united in shock and grief for the 150 people who died and we share in the pain of their relatives. We extend our deepest sympathies to them. The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote that death is great and that we find ourselves in its laughing mouth. The burning inferno on the funicular railway – a railway which was considered to be one of the safest – which leads to one of the most beautiful areas of the Austrian Alps, makes everything else fade into the background, and the readiness to share pain and grief becomes our only comfort. I would therefore consider it to be appropriate to commemorate the victims, who did not only come from my country but from many European countries and from overseas, in a minute’s silence, and I also think that we should dispense with a resolution on this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the release of Mr Dupuis and our other four Radical friends from prison, but, at the same time, I am extremely concerned for the other five political detainees who are still being detained under arbitrary arrest. We are concerned for their fate but what concerns us most is the fact that there has been no news of them at all for two years. I am appalled by the unnecessary delay with which this institution reacted to the violence suffered by Mr Dupuis and the other Radical activists. Lastly, Mr President, I would like to express my concern at a complex case of hypocrisy which Parliament and the European institutions have failed to address: on the one hand, they regularly, emotionally, bring up the issue of human rights, for the protection of human rights is a symbol of our political prowess and pride, yet, on the other, they are reluctant to apply the clause providing for the suspension of economic and commercial relations with those countries which systematically violate these rights, and not just in the case of Laos. We should not be asking Parliament to teach the world democracy: rather, we should be demanding the greatest possible consistency from our institutions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the 45-year history of the European Parliament confirms the Communist Party of Greece's assertion that it was created in order to serve the interests of big business, not of the people, as many would have us believe. The workers of the European Union have seen their rights eroded or even abolished, especially over the last ten years. This applies to industrial relations, insurance rights, democratic liberties and wages. Unemployment, poverty and suppression are spreading. Small and medium-sized enterprises in town and country are being wiped out. Measures are being taken which bolster the increasingly autocratic powers of major economic interests. A Union is being constructed which, instead of opposing the barbarity of the United States, goes along or competes with it on a dangerous and absurd path, which may lead to the destruction of our very planet. The people of the candidate countries therefore have nothing positive to expect as regards their vital interests. Pre-accession relations have given them a bitter foretaste of what happens when companies are restructured, nationalised industries are snapped up by foreign capital, their important social rights are abolished and support is given to their local exploiters, often the Mafia, who are proving to be privileged partners of the European Union. That is why the Communist Party of Greece, in a spirit of solidarity with the people of the candidate countries, urges them to oppose this process. As far as Palestine is concerned, I should like to call on the European Union, here and now, to cut all funding to the regime of criminals in power in Israel and any supply lines to that regime, in order to put an end to the crime being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
It was almost twenty-five years ago now that the Members of the European Parliament were, for the first time, directly elected by the people. That was a milestone. To this day, though, there is no Act on Members’ Legal Status to regulate on one single basis the rights and duties of MEPs, and that is a disgrace, but not, admittedly, one of which this House should be ashamed. If anyone should be ashamed, it is the Council. I was first elected to this Parliament in 1994. Since then, I have had, time and again, the experience of seeing how the Council, when it came to the issue of a Members’ Statute, allowed us to run round in circles. The second attempt at one that I have experienced was this summer, and when we had at last adopted a Statute full of concessions and willingness to compromise, I thought that we were out of the woods. All that was needed was the Council’s approval, but the Council adopts its customary stance of nose in the air and absolute immobility. Shame on them! I have voted against the resolution, because I cannot see why we should now throw away the Statute we have adopted and present the Council not with a law on the legal position of MEPs, but with mere pay scales, of which we cannot be other than ashamed and for which the public will laugh us to scorn.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, although the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs sees the extension of the codecision procedure as being, in principle, much to be welcomed, we do not believe that this goes far enough, as it leaves out policy areas that are crucial to the functioning of the internal market and of the economic and monetary union. It is particularly to be regretted that the simplification of procedures even diminishes the status of joint consultation, as the cooperation procedures have been made merely consultative. We are therefore, of course, less than satisfied, particularly in the areas of competition policy or fiscal policy, which are of immediate relevance to the internal market. I would also like to point out, though, that we would have liked to see the appointment of a Minister for Economic Affairs, which would, in particular, have enabled us – especially in the euro zone – to make a qualitative leap in terms of how we implement the Lisbon objectives. I also think it regrettable that we have not been able to get the Lisbon process constitutionalised, which means that this new Constitutional Treaty cannot be described as a real European economic constitution. I would, however, like to welcome the way in which the EU’s values and objectives are seen as conditional upon sustainable growth, full employment, solidarity and the social market economy, competition and freedom.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to start my remarks by referring briefly to comments from the other side of the House, from Mr Medina Ortega, who complained about what this legislation does not do, with particular reference to social harmonisation and tax harmonisation – omissions which I personally welcome. But from our different positions across the House we should not really complain about what this legislation does not do. We should be happy about what it does do, which is to enable a European company statute to come into force after 30 long years. As has been said, this is voluntary. We do not know at this stage how many companies will be interested in starting up such companies, nor what flaws they might find in the legislation if they do. We do not know what companies might be interested but are deterred from starting up such companies, again because of flaws in the legislation. Other changes might be needed. I discussed with one of the rapporteurs, Mr Menrad, the idea of putting into his report an amendment that this legislation should be looked at again within a reasonable period of time to see what improvements might be needed in the light of experience. He was happy to support this, but very wisely suggested that any such amendment should be put into the main body of the statute report, in other words, the Hans-Peter Mayer report. On that basis I did not table any such amendment here but would highlight Amendment No 16 in the Hans-Peter Mayer report which specifically covers all issues, therefore including consultation issues. Too often EU laws get set in stone. We need to become much lighter on our feet. This should become the rule rather than the exception.

Political group: PPE-DE
Over and above the legal quibbling on all sides, the Biarritz Summit has confirmed that the process of European enlargement is a matter of laborious haggling. The major powers, such as Germany, France, the United Kingdom and, to some extent, Italy, are all agreed in their desire to dominate the small countries of Eastern or Southern Europe that are applying for accession to the European Union. At the same time, each country is seeking to ensure its own supremacy and to guarantee the interests of its own industrial or financial groups. The way is being prepared not just for a two-speed Europe, but for the introduction of less developed countries into the arena dominated by the large predators of the European economy. On the outside, these countries are already preyed on, and they will continue to be so on the inside. As for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the only reason the meeting of Heads of State and Government signed it was in order to be seen to make a statement. The signed document remains vague on elementary human rights, social protection and the freedom of movement of third country nationals. The only area in which it is precise is on the right of ownership and entrepreneurial freedom, which only concerns owners of capital. We have no intention whatsoever of accepting either the Biarritz Summit decisions or what will be decided at the coming summit in Nice. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL