GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the Financial Services Action Plan has been fast-tracked, the accession treaties signed – bringing the reunification of Europe one step closer – the Balkan Initiative launched and the first two parts of the draft constitution presented. Nevertheless, in the last few weeks we have been forced to recognise that where the war in Iraq was concerned personal vanity and national egoism proved to be stronger than the aim of a common foreign policy and that as a result we did not play a part in the 'war or peace' decision. We succeed when we act as a Community; we fail when we reduce Europe to the level of an intergovernmental enterprise. Acting as a Community means not having a national veto with the system of unanimity, but having greater public participation with qualified double majorities. The internal market will become a domestic market for 25 only when they all have the euro as their currency and Parliament is given a right to codecision on tax issues that are relevant to the internal market. The EU foreign minister will be more than an important and necessary job title only if we have codecision for foreign policy. Europe is more than the sum of its parts. Europe is more than the sum of the governments. All of us are Europe! Each individual carries a degree of responsibility for the future of the whole. This way of seeing ourselves is however not yet a reality but still a dream, and that is why I propose that we do not move on to the agenda but have a more in-depth round of communication, information and social dialogue about the results of the last six months. That is also why I call for us to continue to apply the characteristics of the Convention – transparency, proximity to the people and democratisation. The Convention itself fostered this and that is why I think that a public opinion poll on the result of the Intergovernmental Conference would call for regions, nations and members of the public to be directly involved. It would give domestic policy a European dimension, it would make national movements European ones ahead of the forthcoming European elections, and it would inform the public that we are all part of Europe and successfully active in it. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, it is well over eighteen months, Mr Prodi, since you announced that the reform of European governance was one of the Commission's four strategic objectives. It is to your honour that, like earlier Commission presidents, you want to leave your personal mark on the Commission. Your concern to take measures which will at last close the gap between the Union and its citizens is one which I wholeheartedly support. As does the overwhelming majority of the House. We want to do something, at long last, to turn a citizens’ Europe from a slogan into a reality. With all due respect for your concern, Mr President of the Commission, I must say to you in all honesty that I am disappointed in what now lies before us. I have handed out this White Paper and asked our citizens what they think of it. Do you know what the immediate problem was? They had no idea what the 40 odd pages were about. It is all pure Eurospeak, was the reply. How, I wonder, can we possibly close this gap if the language is incomprehensible to its target audience? The White Paper contains positive ideas, such as strengthening the role of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions or stepping up consultation with organisations in civil society, it is true. Nonetheless, I should like briefly to address a few crucial questions. The basic political problem of the White Paper is obvious, I think, right from the start. It says that people think the Union is incapable of acting where action is needed, for example, on unemployment. This reading of the problem is simply not true. The citizens do not think the Union is incapable; on the contrary, their experience on a daily basis is that the Union and its Member States have proven they are incapable. Mr Prodi, you quite rightly said in your speech that, when we speak of governance, we are really talking about democracy. You quite rightly addressed the problem of the democratisation of the European Union here today, but why can I only find trace elements of it in the White Paper itself? One last word on the question of revising the Treaty. The White Paper makes provision for a consultation stage up to March 2002. The final proposals are then due to be submitted a further six months later. Surely it is absurd to present proposals geared to the current Treaties in the autumn of this year, when we will already have been working flat out, hopefully in a convention, on revising the Treaties. Dispensing with amendments to the Treaty, as you have posited, is not, in my view, a viable proposition, quite apart from the fact that you suggest a revision in the White Paper itself. All in all, Mr President of the Commission, even after what my fellow members have said, I see a need for extensive discussion and I offer you Parliament's and my personal assistance.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. – Mr President, I have basically left it open to all members of the Budgetary Control Committee to suggest amendments in the sectors that they tend to cover. Mr Bösch has tabled a number of amendments from the point of view of a critical friend, regarding OLAF, the Anti-Fraud Office. We are now beginning to see the problems of the office not being completely independent of the Commission. Accordingly, Mr Bösch's amendments which have been adopted by the committee include questioning the mission expenses of OLAF, questioning their information and communication measures – having received a reasonable amount of money for this purpose, the office put out less than twelve press releases in both 2000 and 2001 – and indeed questioning both the Commission and OLAF over a cut. The PDB actually cut the budget for OLAF by a substantial figure and we had no answers as to why that money had been cut. The committee has reinstated the money cut, but has put this money into the reserve pending the answers from both those institutions. The committee has also taken a strong view on export refunds. There are many experts on export refunds on the committee. I am definitely not one of those, but essentially the amendments aim for transparency and to help people like me understand the purpose, scope, cost and implementation of export refunds. Other amendments include those on the Economic and Social Committee, cutting funds to reduce its dependence on external experts, increasing appropriations for the measures to combat counterfeiting of the euro – something I as a British Conservative have some trepidation in suggesting – and reinstating part of a cut in budget line B1-361 which seeks to improve monitoring and preventative measures in candidate countries concerning agriculture budgets. Those are the amendments that the Budgetary Control Committee has submitted.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we are caught between a desire for clarity and the difficult nature of this subject. I am slightly uncomfortable with this report. I accept that it took a certain amount of courage to draw up this report, but I am not convinced that it had to be so ambiguous. The line between religion and fundamentalism does not seem to me to be clearly drawn. This certainly does not mean that fundamentalism is bad and religion good, but rather that we must not confuse religion with fundamentalism and vice versa. Speaking, not as a politician, but as a researcher who has studied the history of women, I know one thing: there is not a single religion that has not created a hierarchy between the sexes. This is a historical fact that cannot be denied. All those of us who want to oppose fundamentalism in any shape or form must face up to this historical fact without being hypocritical about it. In every religion, there is a hierarchy between the sexes. Some do promote certain women’s rights, but few create and promote gender equality. That does not exist. We just have to put up with it, as it were. Personally, I am in favour of separating church and State, as you can tell from my speech. My words are addressed to all followers of religion. Fundamentalist or not, you are well aware that no religion has produced a theory on equality between men and women. This report makes me uncomfortable as there are some things that are not right. Recital T, for example, states that fundamentalism and feminism can be reconciled. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is possible to cobble together or come up with strategies for emancipation despite fundamentalism, as certain Iranian women have proved to us, but that does not make it true in all cases. Similarly, when I read in Article 31 that religious leaders must be asked to grant women the right to control their own bodies, I must protest. They will not do it! They are fighting against contraception and abortion. We know it, fundamentalism or not. Let us think seriously and clearly about all that. We will undoubtedly disagree, but each person’s position will be clear to us all.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ten speeches ago our committee chairman, Mr Wynn, said that everything that was important had been said. I want to add my voice to those who congratulated Mr Mulder, the chairman of the committee, Mrs Schreyer and the expertise that we have all around us. Look at all the expertise that is involved in this job and I genuinely mean 'expertise' of our assistants in our Groups, the staff of the committee and the Commission and the experts in the Council of Ministers. Then look at what we apply all this expertise to: a game that I have sometimes described as push penny, which was a game played on a window sill or a table using two pennies, a halfpenny and two sets of goals and you push the penny around. I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with this whole budgetary procedure and I tend to see it as a game of push penny. Literally one cent, one per cent of the GDP of the European Union, and what power do we have over it? The agricultural budget has been given to six or seven million people out of the 400 million people in the Union. It is spread most unfairly: EUR 17 000 per farmer to French farmers, EUR 3 000 per farmer to Portuguese and Greek farmers. But we have to forget about that. The Council puts that there and that has to be financed anyway. Look at our next big spending: regional policy. What does it do? I come from a country that received generous portions of regional finance early on, but that is not so today. Spain, for example, receives a net transfer of about EUR 200 per capita a half per cent of GDP. If Spain is an example of our policies of solidarity in regional policy, then I say it gets nothing. That half per cent of GDP makes no difference: it is imaginary. Mr Aznar may sell his policy of social economic cohesion. I say we need to look at all this again. There are so many things we could do without increasing public spending throughout the European Union by transferring some things from national competence to European competence. Development cooperation has to be one of them and research has to be another. We are not going to build a Community and send in regulations to the new countries in Eastern Europe. We are already unpopular. Nobody is questioning the existence of the state. There are a lot of people questioning the existence of Europe. If the budget is to be an instrument of building Europe, we had better start thinking anew.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, thank you for the statements by the Council and the Commission, and also sincere congratulations and thanks to the Irish people, who removed a great obstacle to enlargement last Saturday. I am pleased that both President Prodi and Commissioner Verheugen concluded their inspired interventions by speaking of information based on the latest Eurobarometer surveys. Only one in five Europeans feels ‘well’ or ‘very well’ informed. This does not make pleasant reading. Nor does it come as much of a surprise, because we have been aware of the problem for many years. I have said it before in this House, and I will gladly say it again: EU information and communications policy is in need of improvement. We must be prepared – as Mr Poettering mentioned – to find the necessary means. Information forms the basis of understanding and thus of the popular grass-roots support that the EU needs. The enlargement negotiations have now passed the point of no return and there must be no new demands made. Admittedly, there is need for a radical reform of agricultural policy, but let us first put all the arrangements in place. I am pleased with the results from the meeting of the Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg over the last couple of days, and it is particularly good news that agreement has been reached on the fact that none of the new applicant countries can under any circumstances start their membership of the EU as net contributors. Anything else would have been unreasonable. I am confident that the Council, headed by the Danish Presidency, will be able to accomplish this great historic task in Copenhagen in December.

Political group: ELDR
I had the opportunity to visit the Sudan earlier this year, as did Mr Corrie, though not at the same time, and he led an official delegation. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his balanced response. It seems to me that what is needed here in Europe is an appreciation of the facts of the situation – what is actually happening. Many allegations have been made. The Sudanese Government denies them. We want to get at the truth. I would like to hear whether the Commission is going to make any effort, or is making any effort, to try to establish whether or not there is a scorched earth policy. The Commission representative in Khartoum said to me that our aid to the Sudan is severely limited because of political constraints. If only we could start to get more aid into that country we might do more to end the civil war there and actually get greater respect for human rights across the whole of that country. That should be the ambition of us all.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the massacres in Ituri are extremely serious events and should indeed be one of the subjects in our debate on human rights. We in the Group of the denounce once again the use of the rape of women and girls as a weapon of war and the recruitment of child soldiers. We denounce the problems concerning access to humanitarian aid and the presence of foreign troops on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Finally, we denounce the neighbouring countries supporting the armed groups operating within the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I would also like to draw attention to the peace process and to the urgency of supporting it, further to the so-called Final Act adopted on 2 April in South Africa. We must not fail to see the wood for the trees. These massacres must not deter us from working for peace in the long term. The government of national unity provided for in the peace agreement must be formed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The country needs an integrating government able to compel armed groups to withdraw. The best means of achieving peace is to form a solid and stable integrating government. The peace agreement timetable provided for the formation of the government of national unity on 28 May. The parties and the rebel groups have presented their lists to the Government. Paradoxically however, it is Mr Kabila’s government that is dragging its feet. Once again, I would urge the Congolese authorities to comply with the terms and timetable in the peace agreement. Similar problems are delaying the formation of a Parliament. The measures required to form a Parliament by 10 June, the date set in the peace agreement, are not being taken. Further, it has become evident that the mandate of the United Nations Observation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) must be amended, as was previously proposed. The United Nations has a mere 5 000 men deployed in a huge country. The MONUC mandate needs to be extended to allow UN troops to intervene between the warring parties. At present they are only there as observers to monitor the cease-fire. In addition, UN troops should be allowed to intervene to protect the civilian population if necessary. This must however remain a United Nations mission. Under no circumstances should foreign troops be deployed, especially troops from countries with interests in the Great Lakes region. French troops must also abide by the MONUC mandate. Clearly, the presence of foreign troops in this area has been at the root of many of the conflicts that laid waste to the region, including the Rwandan genocide. Consequently, it is necessary to ensure that the United Nations alone is responsible for guaranteeing peace. I therefore believe the House must continue to insist on this. I would like to take this opportunity to call upon the Commission to direct as much humanitarian aid as possible to help the civil population of the region. These people have been suffering for a very long time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with the phasing-out of controls at common borders, this report includes provisions which will make it easier for citizens to be followed by the police when they cross the Union’s internal borders. I therefore intended to vote for the motion but I was assailed by a doubt. Still last night, I dreamt that I was in Paris at the Lido, having dinner with a beautiful women, the woman of my dreams, and while I was watching the Bluebells dance, I saw two strangely hairy legs waving about: they were so hairy – they belonged to Mr von Boetticher – that I had quite a shock and I realised that he was a policeman following me, hired by my wife to find out whether I was here at the European Parliament or in Paris at the Lido watching the Folies Bergères or the Bluebells dance. Well then, in the end, Mr President, I decided to abstain in the vote, to avoid such situations, which are probably beyond the objectives of the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the agreement improves the legal position of European passengers, and I would like to make it quite clear – and Commissioner Patten has announced what will happen – that we will place the responsibility firmly on the shoulders of those responsible for this chaos. We will make it clear to Europe's citizens exactly who has curtailed their rights in this area. Thank you. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly I would like to congratulate Mr Whitehead, who has done an excellent job. I would also like to emphasise the unanimity in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. We know that food crises within the EU have meant that people are worried about what they are eating. At the same time this has led to a focus on food and agriculture policy. Now we have to quickly get this new system up and running – this is incredibly important. If we have open borders, which we are to have within the Union, and a free flow of goods, it is naturally important that food can also flow freely. However, this must not of course mean that illnesses and disease also flow freely. Naturally, a common system must not mean that regionally produced food is not permitted. If we look at the entire chain of measures, we can see that we will need scientific advice, risk assessment, risk management and control, including control of the control bodies in the Member States. Possibly in the future it will also be necessary to introduce sanctions. This new authority will not be able to achieve all this but it will, above all, provide new, increased strength at the beginning of the chain in terms of scientific advice and risk assessment. We already have the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin, which plays an important role in terms of risk management and control. It is now necessary for cooperation between these two authorities to be developed. In the long run I do not believe that the European Union will escape, we must have a sanction system at EU level. However, this can only be addressed by the Commission. It is important that we continue the work such that it becomes even more efficient. This is an incredibly important step towards obtaining safer food, which we must take quickly. However, once this step is taken, the issue must not be forgotten. Instead we must develop it further and improve the system even more in the future.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, when a question is asked seriously accusing the Spanish Government of inertia in relation to the death of immigrants in the Straits of Gibraltar, it shows the inanity and irresponsibility of those who use a tragedy to try to discredit their own Government in this House. You see, the Spanish Government, through the Civil Guard, has intercepted 133 leisure craft and 2 300 dinghies in five years, resulting in 203 immigrants dead, over 200 missing and 377 rescued, and I underline rescued, all coming from Morocco. The Spanish Government, through the Civil Guard, has implemented an information system to prevent shipwrecks in the Straits, at a cost of 13 600 million pesetas, for which Spain has requested European Union funding. The Spanish Government has pushed forward the Action Plan on Morocco, as mentioned by the Council representative, which this Parliament approved with a budget line of EUR 10 million. I was the rapporteur for that plan. Now, Mr President, comes my question: when will the Council submit a progress report on the action plan for Morocco to which he has referred?

Political group: PPE-DE
I barely have the courage to say this, but we agreed in 2000 to be the world's most competitive, knowledge-based economy by 2010. After so many debates and so little progress, it seems to have turned into a bad joke. This report by the Council demonstrates once again that we need to cut back on the administrative burden for industry. Nobody will have a problem agreeing with this on paper, but do we really realise what this involves in practice? In the Netherlands, the Finance Minister, Gerrit Jan Zalm, set up a website entitled, www.administratievelasten.nl, which enables businesses to specify on there exactly what is hindering them in their business activities. I call on you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to do the same in the European Union. We must give victims the chance to speak out. Only if we have a serious overview of administrative burdens, can we set to work. Hence, www.stopeuropeanoverregulation.eu! I should like to finish off by saying, Mr President, that from your previous visit to this Parliament, I gather that you like a joke, and I therefore assume that your promises to the Ukraine about EU membership are an expression of your original sense of humour. Surely we should first make a success of the current enlargement, and only then can we think about making new promises.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Amendment No 206 is not rendered redundant by the adoption of the previous amendment. Therefore, we need to vote on Amendment No 206.

Political group: PSE