GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, the word Romania has been mentioned several times today already. I do not think either that we should criticise only the small poor, destitute countries that are being blackmailed but surely also the large rich ones, the ones actually responsible for the blackmail in the first place. This shows that in the European Union we need a calm, unified position on the USA, and we lack this at the moment. On the one hand we have a Head of Government in London who acts as though his country were the fifty-first US State. On the other, we have a Head of Government in Berlin who to hear him talk would seem to be confusing Baghdad with Washington, and who gets his first message of congratulation after the elections from Saddam Hussein. I believe that both of these approaches are wrong. We need a calm, unified, but critical and independent position on the USA. This is not least in the interests of the USA itself. Strengthening international law and its instruments is a fitting response to 11 September; this then includes the International Criminal Court, which we have been fighting for years and which is an indispensable instrument. The Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are actually doing an excellent job, but they are repeatedly discredited in propaganda as dispensing victor's justice. This is wrong! However, if we are to have objective standards in the long term we really do need to strengthen international criminal law in respect of crimes against humanity and genocide, and we need an International Criminal Court that is there for everyone in an equal capacity. We should be clear on one thing: history teaches us that for example the League of Nations failed because this splendid idea emanated from the USA but the USA itself did not participate in it. We call on our American partners and friends to work together with Europe to strengthen international law and the Criminal Court, because otherwise we are providing states in the Arab world, but also China and Russia – I might mention Chechnya and Tibet – with a pretext for ignoring international law on their territory. That is why Europe needs to speak to the USA in a self-assured manner, but calmly and reasonably and in a spirit of partnership.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it was made clear during yesterday’s debate that there are certain parts of this report, which expressly refer to OLAF, which are being removed from it on the recommendation of the Legal Services since they are not admissible, and these parts are therefore not being voted on. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0004/2004) by Mr Casaca, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the action taken by the Commission on the observations contained in the resolution accompanying the decision giving discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 2001 financial year [COM(2003) 651 – C5-0536/2003 – 2003/2200(DEC)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) (The sitting was suspended at 11 a.m. to allow the formal sitting to take place and resumed at 12.25 p.m.)(1) Report (A5-0470/2003) by Mr Zappalà, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the recognition of professional qualifications[COM(2002) 119 – C5-0113/2002 – 2002/0061(COD)]Before the vote

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I owe Mrs Van den Burg an explanation with regard to the amendments. I did not bring the amendment numbers, so I will have to quote from memory, but Mr Bullmann will undoubtedly correct me if he thinks I am quoting the incorrect numbers. Mrs Van den Burg, in order to reach a workable compromise, we will agree on Amendment Nos 4 and 5. Amendment No 7 will be based on the text by Mr Bullmann to which a sentence will be added. That is the oral amendment I was referring to. We will also agree on the second part of Amendment No 9 which starts with ‘calls on the Member States’, Amendment No 10 by way of supplement and Amendment No 12. I believe that is the complete list. I would now like to respond to Mr Colom i Naval. He has probably been waiting for this all evening. Mr Colom i Naval, I would like to make this quite clear: content was not the issue. The reason why we were unable to talk about this before we voted on the amendments is that I was firstly in the United States with the delegation – you will have noticed my absence in the committee at the time – and then I was in Rome with my group. It was a slightly hectic month. It was not a matter of content. The fact is that the European Commission took the Member States as its point of departure in its communication. I did the same in my report. If, in your report, you were to write about the effects of the European budgetary policy on employment, then I would gladly vote in favour of all your amendments, but they did not feature in the framework of my report. I apologise for the fact that we did not have an opportunity to talk about this.

Political group: PPE-DE
This Report was voted on under Rule 110a of the Rules of Procedure, which allows for no debate and no amendments to the report. The British Delegation of the Group has previously sought to amend reports which it did not support. The new rule, however, leaves no option but to abstain on certain reports. This is a very sensitive area of policy. The British Conservative Delegation is particularly keen to protect children and their rights, and the standards which are applied in the UK are generally very high. We therefore believe that improving standards and protecting children is something where best practice should be shared but that introducing a regulation of this kind might well slow down the process of general improvement in approach. - Report Randzio-Plath (A5-0366/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my profession, I meet people with health problems caused by noise. Health problems and unpleasant experiences of noise are, however, both very individual matters, which makes the issue of noise a difficult one. For example, living next to a shooting range, with the type of noise produced there, may be a very unpleasant experience even if the range is rarely in use. Some people find low-frequency noise and its vibrations very unpleasant. I am convinced that we need more research into the problem of noise, and more knowledge about it. One of the main reasons why the Europe we share is so fascinating is the many differences there are in our part of the world. Variations in the European landscape and countryside are examples of this. The level of settlement varies according to whether we are talking about heavily populated areas in Central Europe, such as in the Netherlands, or sparsely populated areas in northern Europe such as are to be found in Sweden and Finland. That is something we must consider when we take measures to combat the problems caused by noise. Aircraft, cars and trains move between different countries and environments. It is therefore only right that they should comply with common provisions concerning noise. However, industrial areas and airports are fixed installations, and their environments vary considerably. That is why it is important that we should not become bogged down in future legislation on noise consisting of measures standardised from the perspective of Central European population centres. Noise regulations must allow flexibility. Local and national authorities are better placed to take account of environmental factors in the case of permanent sources of noise. We must comply with the principle of subsidiarity and draw up anti-noise regulations that it is possible to apply throughout the EU without there being unreasonable local consequences.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to address just three issues, three key words, in our debate today on the guidelines for planning the 2003 Budget. Issue No 1: enlargement, which will of course play a larger part in 2003's Budget procedure than it has done in previous years. Looking closely, though, at how much pre-accession aid can drain away today – and we have heard a certain amount about this in agriculture – there are still things that must be done both by us and by the candidate countries. It is not enough to enable them to get the hang of the programmes and the management structures as well, and then require only 3500 posts up to 2008, all of which is described as ‘enlargement costs’. I wish, though, also to appeal to my fellow Members of this House, and warn against using budgetary sleight-of-hand to take money intended for enlargement under category 8, shove it under category 7 and fund pre-accession aid from it. That is not the Commission's doing, but rather an amendment proposed by Members of this House. I would ask them, in that event, to be honest, go home and tell their own Ministers of Finance that we need the Financial Perspective to be revised, and that enlargement is underfunded. Using such tricks to try to fund enlargement is something I can only warn against. I wish to express my gratitude to the Commission for the position they have taken on this subject, which also expresses the view of the Group of the . Issue No 2: foreign policy. I will keep this very brief, and tell you once and tell you clearly that I am slowly getting steamed up by the fact that a lunch for the European Union's Foreign Ministers costs us on average EUR 100 million. That is just not practicable in the long term. There is more to come. We are now suddenly supposed to take over further activities, whereas the Member States said months ago that they would finance them themselves. Let me mention only ‘Amber Fox’ as a key example. Now they are suddenly supposed to be funded by the Community budget, which is utterly extraordinary. Let the Council state which of the European Union's activities it can do without, and then funding can be provided on a serious basis. Issue No 3: agricultural policy. I think we do not need to use the Budget procedure to reinvent agricultural policy, but I do of course expect the Commission to submit its proposals on the Mid-Term Review in good time, so that we are in a position to incorporate whatever is of budgetary value into the framework of the 2003 Budget procedure. On that point, let me observe that, as the budgetary authority, our participatory roles in the rural development programmes and in the area of traditional income aid are different and that the Commission should please bear that in mind so that it can go ahead on time. Let me conclude by thanking Mr Färm and Mr Stenmarck most warmly for their good cooperation. I am sure that we will be able, by the end of the year, to present a sound Budget. It should not be left to Parliament. I hope that it is not left to the Council either. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it goes without saying that we all sympathise with and support the victims of the earthquake in Turkey and which, as a previous speaker said, is the second earthquake to hit Turkey in under two years. Obviously, action to help the victims speaks louder than words of support and we have no choice here but to admit that there is no mechanism at European Union level to provide help in these and similar natural disasters. And another thing: we could say of the area of Turkey which was hit that it is an area where poverty attracts misfortune. If buildings had been built to earthquake standards, we would have had fewer victims. Even the director of the earthquake institute in Istanbul stated that there is no building control committee in the area to check that buildings meet specifications. So let this too be an incentive to improve our earthquake defences. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
we can see Liberals sitting in the Council seats, a Prime Minister who is genuinely Liberal, and at his side he has Mr Haarder. I would like to start by saying that you are a brave man, Prime Minister. Is it really possible to enlarge Europe without Poland? I know that everyone thinks so and says so, but I find it extremely difficult to envisage that happening in the end. I would like to hear your comments on the political and strategic realities in this case. Let me also say a few words about the asylum and refugee policy. I know that this is a sensitive area, and I know that you view all Swedes as big brother types. I hope that is not currently the case, Prime Minister, but that you see me as a Liberal and as a friend, a trusted friend who is also able to tell you a few truths. Sometimes we are wrong, and other times we are right. I must say that I am concerned about developments. I am concerned that Europe is about to become a fortress which does not welcome people. We know that we need so many millions of people. We need perhaps four million each year until 2050 to keep Europe working and to be able to maintain the prosperity of Europe. When Europe is enlarged, I believe it is vital to uphold our values, those values which we Europeans want others to share. I also believe that it is important for us to meet these demands ourselves. I must say, Prime Minister, that I hope that the refugee policy which you have changed in Denmark is not a sign of things to come in the rest of Europe. I believe, in fact, that we need more tolerance and more openness, quite simply more liberalism. Liberalism is what the people of Europe long for. We can never fight negative forces with negative measures. Prime Minister, finally I would like to say that I have great faith in your work. You are completing the work of Mr Uffe Elleman-Jensen. I would like to say good luck, but I also hope that you will change your mind with regard to the asylum and refugee policy.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Group. As a coordinator and negotiator, I have to say that it is true that we always refer to the official name for official documents. However much I would like to use the word Macedonia on its own, it still appears purer to me to use the official name that is internationally accepted in this official text. The fact is that this is FYROM, and let us adhere to this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, the European workforce is expensive. Sometimes this is referred to as a negative aspect, as a factor that hinders competitiveness, yet this is a good thing. This provides a decent standard of living for the workforce, for those who are no longer or not yet employed, and for those also who have to be absent from work temporarily. Price is, of course, an important factor in competitiveness, but it is only one of the factors, the other one being quality. This is why we were happy to see the Lisbon Strategy in 2000 state that the future of the European economic and social system will stand or fall on success or failure in making Europe the most competitive, knowledge-based economy by 2010. The key to this, however, is education, training, life-long learning and furthermore, research and development. We are now in the year 2004. In the research and development race the gap in favour of the United States has opened even wider. The harmonisation of the education and training policies of the European states is at a very low level, and the life-long learning concept is not spreading at the speed it should. As a result of all this it looks as if the US is coming out of recession, in the Far East the dynamic growth of the economy based on cheap labour is continuing, whilst Europe continues to stagnate. The European social system is, therefore, a value that we must maintain, yet the European economy is less and less able to produce the financial resources for this. It would not be good for us to remain helpless in the face of this situation, without knowing what to do, but it would be even worse if, despite being able to see the way out, we did very little of what was needed. Ladies and gentlemen, the Hungarian nation had a poet with fire in his heart, Sándor Petőfi, who roused the nation to action during the days of the 1848 revolution with these words: ‘Today is the right time, but tomorrow may be too late’. In the next five years it will certainly not be the right time for Europe, but perhaps it will not be too late either. Let us leave this as a legacy to our successors convening on 19 July: it will depend on their wisdom, determination and ability to cooperate whether the unfavourable processes can be reversed or the European social system will remain just a congenial experiment that is doomed to end in failure because of lack of economic support.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I also wish to begin by thanking the Commission and Mr Whitehead for the work that has been done. It cannot be emphasised enough how important a proper consumer policy is for the EU. Consumer policy has, of course, many important purposes. It must contribute to sustainable development, sustainable production and sustainable consumption. It is also necessary to change our consumer behaviour, and the small consumer organisations are very important in this context. I particularly want to discuss the aid given to small consumer organisations and, in particular, to the new Member States. They should not be discouraged by the fact that it takes some time for them to be informed about the co-financing projects. Instead, it must be ensured that the procedure is changed so that they are notified quickly and so enabled to continue their good work.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the population of Colombia is suffering under a regime of poverty, violence and drugs. These three problems can only be solved in interrelation to one another. Many Columbians live in dead-end situations. More than half the population earns less than two dollars a day. The inequality is shocking. Three percent of Columbians own 70% of the land. Many farmers rely on growing coca and poppy as their only means of existence. Social inequality, violent traditions and the lack of state power give guerrilla fighters and paramilitary units free reign to sustain their unscrupulous acts of terror. Their fight for power is essentially a fight for drugs. Lawlessness reigns supreme, and human rights violations are legion. Needless to say, the world drugs problem must mainly be tackled at root level, that is to say also in the producing countries themselves. That is why it is essential for farmers in Columbia to be offered a reasonable alternative to producing drugs. This should also be the focal point of the European contribution. In addition, Europe and America must, of course, also open up their markets to alternative products from Columbia. A unilateral military approach will not offer any solace as long as the deeper causes are not addressed. So far, the contamination of plantations has resulted in serious environmental damage and horrific disorders in people, as well as in a shift of production. However, we should at the same time not be naïve. We need to realise that a hard-line approach is sometimes required vis-à-vis the drugs mafia. It is not always possible to win over big-time villains by negotiation alone. Europe should mainly focus on the outcome. The world must be set free from drugs and the Columbian population from poverty and violence.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the economy needs to be managed differently from the way it is now; it must not just be controlled by a few but at least be subject to democratic supervision. Like all economic processes, globalisation is not a natural phenomenon but a worldwide process we have to contend with, taking all the factors at all levels into consideration. For this reason, we need to influence the way globalisation is managed, working to achieve a democratic perspective, giving the people and governments back a role of supervision and management. To this end, we will be at Genoa demonstrating peacefully against the G8, and nobody can take away our right to demonstrate. However, we do warn you of the serious danger represented by organised groups who will be there with the declared objective of starting fights and creating violence on the streets, and we therefore request all those who are going to take part in the demonstrations to publicly disassociate themselves unambiguously, from this moment onwards, from action by irresponsible groups, and to make a commitment as of now to isolating and neutralising the troublemakers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to draw your attention to the continuing deterioration of the situation in Zimbabwe. Last Friday Zimbabwean ministers had a meeting with EU representatives and they have been asked to write a letter or a report by tomorrow on improvements in the situation in Zimbabwe. In fact, over the last week things have continued to deteriorate. It is very important that the international community should show that it really means business by bringing Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe to task. We need to be preparing smart sanctions now. I urge you to ensure that the Council and the Commission take a uniformly tough line on Zimbabwe before it is too late. Presidential elections will be held there on 9 March and time is running out.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Posselt, in agreement with the shadow rapporteur, Mr Schmid from the Group of the , we felt it was more appropriate to vote this afternoon when most of the Members are here. There was a lengthy discussion on this matter in the committee and this report is largely uncontentious. After all, there are no further proposed amendments, and that was why I felt it was sensible, and would ask the plenary to agree, that the vote be held this afternoon when all the Members are still here. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I consider the Millennium Round to be an important opportunity to promote the opening of the international markets to competition, to extend the guarantees against anti-competition practices and to finally address the subject of investments as well. The liberalisation of world trade is a positive process that generates growth and that can be hindered, not only by the protectionist practices of the States, but also by the creation of situations where competition is distorted, such as in the event of the abuse of dominant positions, cartels and dumping – think of the example of the shipbuilding industry – which are so harmful to Europe. This is something that is largely new for the World Trade Organisation, but I think it extremely important. Similarly, a new area for talks should be the quest to open up national markets to foreign investments. It is important that the Schwaiger report and Parliament recognise the World Trade Organisation as the appropriate forum for serious negotiations on investments, seeking certainty and clarity of the law on the protection of investments, but also, obviously, the protection of state legislation in social, environmental and cultural fields. The Schwaiger report understandably puts more emphasis on safeguards, but I think that it is generally in harmony with the Commission proposal and therefore expresses full confidence in Commissioner Lamy’s work with regard to this sensitive topic as well, in full awareness that the liberalisation of international trade, even in new fields – as with investments – is an important concern for the countries of the European Union and all the countries which have an interest in lasting and sustainable development of the global economy.

Political group: PSE