GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should just like to make a slight correction to what you said: this is not our last Friday sitting in Strasbourg but our last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being. We decide our calendar of sittings each year, and I hope that this costly and erroneous decision will be reversed and that we will once again use the full five days in Strasbourg and do away with the expensive mini-sessions instead. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I apologise to the translators if I spoke too quickly earlier on. I would like to talk to you about the resignation of Mr Pelinka from the Management Board of the European Monitoring Centre, Vienna. I believe that what happened to Mr Pelinka, a renowned academic respected by the scientific community, is indicative of the true nature of the coalition in power in Austria. The far right, particularly when it is in power, is highly skilled in the art of pushing its opponents to the limit. What happened in the case of Mr Pelinka did not come about by chance or coincidence. It began with slander, he was persecuted by means of an unfair judgement, given by a court answering to the FPÖ, as the current Justice Minister of the FPÖ was Jörg Haider’s lawyer when he sued Mr Pelinka for libel. The work of the Monitoring Centre was then made unbearable by a public pressure campaign against its members. I believe that Haider is, and we must recognise this, expressing his contempt for the sanctions that the European Union is currently imposing on him as it was when the Portuguese Presidency took the initiative of proposing the nomination of three wise men that he decided to retaliate by demanding a referendum on lifting sanctions, a completely demagogic, populist and anti-European referendum. We are also talking about a challenge issued by Haider to the Community as a whole. He reminds us that the Monitoring Centre is a creation of the European Union and that our President attended its inauguration three months ago. This is proof, for those who might still have doubts, that we must not negotiate with the far right, as every small victory it achieves strengthens it and makes it more commonplace. If the European Union were to relax its position on Austria, this would not miraculously lead Haider and his friends to defend human rights and relinquish their ideology. In response, we must give Mr Pelinka our total support. We must also help the Monitoring Centre on a human, political and financial level and finally, the Member States must continue to isolate the Austrian Government and, while supporting the Austrian people, isolate the coalition, which is unacceptable and unfair. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
We are all aware of the disparity between the declarations made at the Tampere Summit and the content of the proposal for a directive before us, which has reached us after more than three years of discussion in Council and two amendments to the Commission’s initial proposal. It was stated that any integration policy should aim at granting immigrant citizens rights and obligations that are comparable with those held by EU citizens. The text that has been presented takes the opposite direction. The outcome of divisions within the Council, this proposal is for common standards that are harmonised down towards the lowest common denominator, with a reductive vision of the concept of family and with a number of derogations that leaves some crucial aspects unresolved. For this very reason, we support the proposals contained in this report, which broaden the concept of the family, guarantee the principle of non-discrimination and prevent the overturning of more favourable legislation. On our initiative, the report now includes provisions for not adding the examination of applications to the normal workload of administrations and for eliminating the subjective concept of a long-term relationship. It also excludes illness or disability suffered after the issue of the residence permit as grounds for refusing to renew the permit. By introducing such amendments, the report distances itself in qualitative terms from the initial proposal and therefore deserves our favourable vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my colleague, Mr von Wogau, and I would seem to share something more than just the same opinion today. I also have guests there in the public gallery. They are from Finland, and I would like to wish them welcome. (Applause) Commissioner, we surely agree that Europe must never encounter the same sort of profound banking crisis that we had to undergo at the start of the 1990s. We shall, however, see losses in the banking industry in the future too. When a bank suffers losses, its own resources function as a buffer, which helps to cover the losses that ordinary business profits cannot cover sufficiently. For that reason, the proposal now under discussion is of major importance, as we are trying to ensure that European banks are sound and that their clients’ savings are therefore protected. Their shareholder’s equity relies on their ability to take account as best they can of the nature and extent of banking risks. With modern techniques in risk management it is possible to gain much more precise data on risks than previously. So it is natural that the banks should also be given the opportunity to use these resources and create a more risk-sensitive working environment. To increase risk awareness both the banks’ internal and external evaluation methods must be available. In fact, I believe that internal classification will, in future, enjoy a more important status, as often it is within the banks themselves that key personnel from companies to be allowed credit are well known, as are the companies’ operations generally. There is broad consensus in Parliament on the content of this proposal. Actually, the only significant difference of opinion among the groups concerns the procedure that should be applied to this proposal and other proposals on legislation on financial services in the future. Our rapporteur, Mrs Villiers, who has been responsible for some excellent work, mentioned in her report the possibility of applying a fast track method. I support her fully in this idea, as I think it is important that the financial service sector action plan be got through in accordance with the briefest possible timetable. In practice the only way to do that is to speed up the legislation procedure and agree that more issues should be handled on an emergency procedure basis. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
We did not vote against this resolution because we did not want our votes to be confused with those of the extreme right, which objects to a number of fundamental rights even being affirmed or opposable to the sovereignty of States. We have absolutely no intention, however, of endorsing the Charter itself, as it is still vague on such basic human rights as the right to employment, a decent wage or accommodation, rights which affect the majority of the population, and is also vague regarding the social protection and freedom of movement and residence of third country nationals. It is quite specific, on the other hand, regarding the right to property and freedom to conduct a business, affecting primarily the capital-owning minority, the right to exercise this and to abuse it. The recognition of freedoms and human rights is nothing more than a recommendation of principle without being legally binding, i.e. without being made obligatory for the Member States. The European institutions are, however, quite capable of making binding decisions, such as, for example, the authorisation of night working for women, when such decisions are harmful or when they lead to pointless hassle. This is not, however, the case for basic rights such as the right of all employees to strike or join unions. The Charter will, consequently, be used more to enshrine the current practices, including the reactionary practices, of the national States than to represent genuine progress.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the LIFE III second reading debate held here back in February, we concluded that this regulation was better than the LIFE I and LIFE II regulations. It was better because it was more rigorous, more transparent and more rational. It was better because it established the promotion of employment as a factor to be taken into consideration when selecting potential projects. It was better because it established the reduction of the global impact of products, from manufacture to recycling and disposal, as one of the objectives that LIFE­Environment should achieve. Lastly, it was better because it established the improvement and planning of coastal areas as one of LIFE­Environment’s priorities. Despite these positive points, there remained four areas of disagreement between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and these were dealt with under the conciliation procedure. These areas were the budget, comitology, provision for a fourth stage of LIFE and the objectives of LIFE­Environment. The work under the conciliation procedure added further improvements to the LIFE III regulation and we can say quite simply that, although we lost on the issue of comitology, we managed to get our views across on the essential issues. I therefore congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Lienemann, both on her work at first and second reading and on her work during the conciliation procedure. I would like to highlight what I think are the two most relevant points. With regard to the budget for the period 2000-2004, which was the main issue at stake, we would clearly have preferred to agree on an amount closer to EUR 850 million – the sum proposed by the European Parliament – than the EUR 613 million set by the Commission and the Council. Nevertheless, as they say, politics is the art of the possible, and if we had not agreed, as we finally did in conciliation, on an amount of EUR 640 million, we would have ended up bearing the political responsibility for leaving thousands of projects in limbo and without financial support for the year 2000. In any event, we told the Commission and the Council once again that, as far as Parliament is concerned, although these appropriations are more than the common position provided for, they still fall short of the sum that LIFE has demonstrated it deserves. I should also like to express my satisfaction with the agreement that has enabled us to integrate the sustainable management of water and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into the objectives for LIFE­Environment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, there can be no doubt that, especially recently, tourism in Europe is going through a serious crisis, due in part to the Iraqi crisis. I think that there should be action to deal with this problem at European level. We would expect more substantial steps in this direction but, of course, the basic problem is the lack of a legal basis in the Treaty. And that is what I shall focus on in my intervention. I know that from time to time the Commissioner, Mr Liikanen, also does what he can and what he is allowed to do on the basis of the current legislative framework; however, there are initiatives which affect the tourism sector and do not fit into a single approach and, at the same time, there is the strange phenomenon that, although we have policy for industry, we do not have policy for the most important part of industry or, in all events, a part which is becoming more and more important, which is tourism. It is also strange, I think, that there are policies on various individual issues, such as fisheries, and rightly so, while the tourism sector, which provides work for a great many workers, the number of which rises year by year, is ignored. No-one here in this Parliament, Commissioner, is talking about replacing the role of the Member States. On the contrary. We are talking about added value at Brussels level. We are talking about coordinating action, we are talking about imitating what is basically happening in other sectors, as in the example of industry I mentioned to you. The constitutional Convention is an important opportunity that should not be missed. Your reply, the reply of the Commission, not you personally, because I know that you are not responsible for the issue, you are merely so kind as to represent the Commission here, does not, I must say, satisfy Parliament. If you look at the positions taken by Parliament from time to time, your reply is rather neutral. One expects a stronger commitment on the part of the Commission for the Convention. There are members of the Convention who are addressing the issue. Our honourable friend, Mr Lamassoure, has tabled an amendment so that tourism becomes an additional responsibility of the European Union and we are waiting for substantial steps and a strong commitment on this particular issue on the part of the European Commission, because the Convention cannot and must not go unexploited. This is an opportunity for us to make a fresh start on tourism at European level.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on Monday the Council agreed to set the date of accession at 1 May at the latest. As I see it, we should not be arguing about one month or another, and I suggest that we should make the necessary adjustments here and accept the date of 1 May. However, to make sure that this does not put Parliament at a disadvantage when it comes to nominating the new Commission later on, we should stipulate an arrangement which will benefit Parliament now and add the following words after the date: ‘... and calls on the Council not to jointly nominate and confirm the new Commission with Parliament until after the European elections and to find a provisional interim solution for the accession countries’. I believe that we should avoid Parliament having its rights encroached upon by having nominations made before the elections. The President established that at least 32 Members objected to the oral amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, some Members of the Group support Mr Rothley's report and some do not. I am one of the latter. I would like to explain why. The rationale behind the proposal that Member State governments will be able to allow publishers, artificially, to keep up the cost of 'literature' as opposed to – as I understand it – airport novels, seems to me to be both silly and wrong. In my own country the abolition of re-sale price-fixing for books has coincided with an increase in numbers of books sold and published. No doubt this is partly the result of developments in technology, but to maintain that making literature more expensive than it need be is in some way in the public interest frankly stretches my incredulity beyond breaking point. I should like to give an example. As the House may know, the Commissioner has written a number of books. There was one particular one that caught my fancy, which I thought I might like to buy. The cover price was not that expensive but it struck me as being a bit on the high side, so I sucked my teeth a bit and did not get it. But then I saw in a bookshop a discounted copy. Before you could say 'knife' I had opened my wallet, put my money on the table and had a copy of the book. I was the beneficiary of the Commissioner's wisdom and he had a small advantage of my money which otherwise would not have occurred. Having said all that I am a believer in subsidiarity. It seems to me that if Member States wish to introduce some kind of book pricing regime into their own country, it is not for me to stand in their way. I say that subject to one proviso, and an important one: against that background the rules of the single market should apply in their entirety. Books published elsewhere in the Community, in whatever language, should be able to be imported and sold according to the rules in force and the place of publication. Those are exactly the same principles as apply in the case of satellite broadcasting, which is essentially similar.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at the initiative of our rapporteur, Mr Nisticò, there have been informal negotiations with the Council and the Commission on this matter, which is a very sensitive one for many in Parliament and for many of the Member States. Last week, we reached an understanding and an agreement as to how this matter could be resolved without a protracted and very difficult debate in the Conciliation Committee. During the debate in Parliament this morning, it was that agreement and that understanding – which it had been possible for both the Commission and the Council to accept and which had been reached on this issue specifically relating to unpaid blood donation – that our rapporteur ran away from. I would therefore ask that we postpone the vote and see if we cannot solve this matter and so avoid a host of more or less ill thought-out oral amendments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am delighted at the progress on economic cooperation with Cambodia and other Asian countries and I am also for the financial support that the European Union gives to Cambodia, but with a qualification and I will come back to that in a minute. I would like to remind you that of all the countries that the European Union gives financial support to, Cambodia receives the most support per head of population. However, I am very concerned about the human rights situation in Cambodia. We all know that practices such as torture of prisoners, the involvement of the army and police in trafficking of women and children and excessive pre-trial detention are commonplace. I have in mind particularly recent reports about the murder of Om Radsady, the ex-chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Cambodian Parliament, the threats against Princess Vacheahra, the present chair of this Committee, and the continuing violation of the rights of the opposition parties, especially the party of Sam Rainsy and the accusations against him over the responsibility for the attack on the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh. Mr President, in the light of these events I would urge that the aid to Cambodia from the European Union must not be allowed to be unconditional and that our representatives in Phnom Penh must put explicit pressure on the Cambodian Government to make every effort to improve the human rights situation in their country. With a view to the coming elections, the European Union must also press for guarantees of free, fair and democratic elections and of the safety of the various opposition leaders, otherwise, then the European Union must indeed immediately revoke its cooperation agreement with Cambodia. It would be completely incredible if the European Union, that is always so tough on improving human rights and promoting democracy everywhere in the world, were to give such enormous amounts in financial aid to a country that cannot guarantee either one of these things.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I feel much happier after Mrs Reding’s speech, because it seems the Commission has made an effort to bring together those three principles, namely the principle of recognition of Community law, the principle of the autonomy of professional organisations and the principle of the specificity of sport. I was also relieved to hear the last statement to the effect that access to national jurisdiction – or, if appropriate, to Community jurisdiction – remains open. I should just like to ask the Commissioner for further clarification. Is there not a risk that transferring the competence for applying the rules to FIFA and to other professional organisations might lead to the possible transfer of legislative powers from the European institutions to non-governmental organisations such as FIFA, FIFPRO or UEFA?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I simply wanted to point out that the Spanish media are very professional and that it therefore does not surprise me that they have this ability to access sources of information.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, your statements have reinforced a belief and an impression I have. I believe that the journey on which we embarked at Helsinki will be a long one and that no one is yet able to predict where it will end, except in Turkey’s assuming an important position either inside or outside of the European Union. The public and private sector spokesmen we recently met in Turkey all readily agreed on this. My feeling is that certain representatives of the Turkish people are discovering, as a result of December’s decision, that accession to the Union will mean not only drastic reform of their institutions, but also radical changes in mindsets. This is reflected in the distrust shown, as the Commissioner has just reported, towards European institutions in general and the representatives of the European Parliament in particular. Firstly, there was the refusal of the request to visit Leyla Zana, which resulted in the postponement of the meeting of the joint European Union-Turkey Parliamentary Committee scheduled for 22 and 23 February. Then, on the same day, at a time when your rapporteur was in Ankara, there was the arrest of three Kurdish mayors from the south-eastern region. Lastly, on 28 March, there was the arrest and reimprisonment of Akin Birdal, President of the Turkish Association for the Defence of Human Rights, at a time when a delegation from this Parliament was visiting Turkey. I would ask the Council and the Commission whether it would not be appropriate, given the circumstances, to state quite clearly that while the Union is not in the business of telling anyone what to do, it is founded on the will to promote and safeguard certain fundamental values, prominent among which are respect for human rights and the rights and duties of minorities. This is what Parliament will once again underline in the resolution, which is to be submitted for the approval of the Members next Thursday, urging the Turkish Government and the political parties of Turkey to turn to good account the constitutional review that is currently in progress in order to implement pressing reforms, in line with the Helsinki Agreements, that will enable the Turkish State to guarantee the democratic rights that we consider essential. The ball is in Turkey’s court. It is up to Turkey to decide whether the first obstacles encountered on this new road are to prove insurmountable or not. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE