GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I am pleased that you have already broached the problems relating to communications. Prestigious as this building is from an architectural viewpoint (although it has a lot of space which cannot be used), there are, to my mind, communications problems in addition to what I would say are the building’s defects in terms of convenience. Now that we have a French President, I would have expected the French railways to have shown some interest and that the Belgian railways too, together with the French railways, would pull out all the stops to make our journeys here comfortable. Madam President, a train service has been axed rather than an additional one laid on. That is exactly what we did not need, and it was primarily the officials that alerted me to this fact, for those who have to stay until the end of the part-session can return to Brussels on a quarter to three train and then have a five hour journey ahead of them. This means that I will no longer be able to fulfil my evening commitments as I have a speaking engagement this evening. So the only other option open to me is to return earlier, which will be very early indeed. Had I left at quarter to ten this morning, I would have arrived in Brussels seven hours later, although today, as it happens, I might not have arrived at all for there is strike action going on too. But I digress. I wanted to point out to you that a five-hour train journey to get here and five hours back seems an inordinately long time in this day and age. After all, there are high-speed rail connections now, everything you could want. But not here. There is a prestigious building here but no high-speed rail service. I feel the two should in fact go together, but when I get to hear that the rail service that connects with the end of our part-sessions has been abolished then surely that is the complete opposite of what you would expect. Could you please do something about this too? By the way, congratulations on all the small and large improvements that you have already been able to make, following great efforts on your part. I have no doubts on that score.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, cultural diversity is a popular concept in the European Union. Most of the time, however, we avoid the problem of cultural identity, because that is far more sensitive, certainly where definitions are concerned. This is why I should like to talk about this. Mrs Prets’ report largely draws on my ideas and on those of other Members, and I should like to thank her for the way in which we have been able to work together. I therefore endorse what both the rapporteur and Commissioner Reding have said in their fine speeches to this House. My guiding principle is that respect for a community's cultural identity is a condition for peaceful coexistence. It is also a condition for the integration of people into another cultural community without this leading to frustration and alienation. Anyone who fails to respect a person’s culture does not respect the person himself, does not invite mutual respect and does not show any signs of being prepared to engage in a cultural dialogue which, in a world of ever more far-reaching globalisation, is necessary for cultural development. Striving towards maintaining one's own culture should therefore not lead to isolation, xenophobia or racism. We should, however, be aware that the market will not rescue diversity. This is why we need instruments and resources to retain diversity, as well as opportunities of establishing this retention of cultural identity. Despite this, languages and cultures are disappearing very fast, and I am therefore delighted with the emphasis you have placed on this principle that should lead us, also for example in the contacts with the developing countries. I am convinced that each community should have the opportunity of safeguarding its own culture against oppression, for example from language imperialism. Respect for languages is one of the major assets in the enlargement of Europe, one that we have already had the pleasure of experiencing among ourselves. Finally, I hope that the instruments that are being developed internationally, along with the instruments that you and the EU will be developing, will serve diversity and will facilitate cultural identity in the proper sense of the word.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, President of the Commission, President-in-Office of the Council, the atrocities in Madrid have moved the fight against crime and terrorism to the top of the European agenda. Europe needs to join forces on a scale hitherto unseen. European leaders should have realised much earlier, before the attack in Madrid and preferably even before the Treaty of Amsterdam, that one of their most important political responsibilities is to guarantee external and internal security for the Union. Bringing about measures that are sufficiently effective and multi-faceted requires respect for fundamental rights, and also democratic transparency and monitoring. Otherwise, there is a risk that the measures that directly affect citizens will be too weak and enjoy insufficient support. This particularly applies to intelligence. European leaders should have given the EU better real powers to hit out at terrorism and cross-border crime long before we were forced to adopt panic measures. Years of inactivity are reflected in the programme with which the Irish Presidency is now exemplarily presenting us, but the issues merit a long-term approach. The harsh reality is that European leaders should have shown European political leadership much sooner. An official in charge of counter-terrorism is certainly needed, but the Commission must be the central player. The most natural thing would be to build on the competence we already have in the Commission, and supplement this with a Commissioner who fills the gap that the escalated fight against terrorism threatens to create in citizens’ basic protection, particularly the protection of their privacy. A package solution to the crisis is not sufficient to fight terror. Instead, long-term measures on a Community footing are required.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the President of the Commission expressed optimism this morning as to the future of Europe. “A greater Europe is taking form”, said Mr Prodi. We may ask: is a Europe taking form that is greater in spirit and in intent? A Europe with new aims, a Europe capable of performing its international role better? I hesitate. It is permissible to doubt. The Conference of the World Trade Organisation in Qatar in itself justifies tempered optimism. The European Union’s action through its representatives, namely Commissioners Lamy and Fischler, was difficult but frankly positive. In fact, European diplomacy contributed decisively to the positive results of the Conference and hence to putting an end to the paralysis of the World Trade Organisation, to restoring its credibility after the resounding failure of the Seattle Conference. The commitments undertaken by the European Union are far from fulfilling our main priorities, particularly in the environmental and social spheres. The European representatives were, in fact, faced with a dilemma, where they saw protection of nature and social rights, the representatives of the developing countries saw only disguised protectionism of European interests. Therefore, there are grounds for hope, but also grounds for disappointment. It is worth emphasising the positive aspect of the negotiations with regard to agriculture, which are, at last, prompting and stimulating an in-depth reform of the CAP which the European Union proved incapable of carrying out internally. Equally praiseworthy are the results obtained with regard to medicine prices and the undeniable victory achieved over the egoism of the pharmaceutical multinationals. The Doha Conference represents just a small step along the steep path that aims to harmonise liberalism and regulation, a small step for globalisation to contribute to world progress and especially to the reduction of poverty, hunger, disease and violence. Lastly, if the failure... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have been given the opportunity to speak on Section III of the 2003 budget, having monitored the report in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on behalf of my group, that of the . I therefore want primarily to set out the concerns behind the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development's amendments to this report by Mr Färm, whom I will take this opportunity of warmly thanking for his work. Today we are not discussing the 2003 budget, but the budget guidelines which express our fundamental thinking, and I am here to present that of my group in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. For a start, we want, in the first instance, resources from Chapters B1-1 to B1-4 to be capable of being carried over individually to the following year. In the long term, though, we also want compulsory and non-compulsory resources to be able to be carried over, something that presupposes Parliament's right of codecision in agricultural matters. Secondly, we have a further demand with regard to the increase in the flexibility reserves with a view to potential crises and emergencies. Thirdly, even though the majority on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted differently on this point, we are opposed to the introduction of the INPARD programme, which will lead only to a further fragmentation of the resources, demand for which on the part of the candidates for accession has been slack. A supplementary programme of this sort will, moreover, bring only additional bureaucracy in its train. Fourthly, and – for us – most importantly, the 2003 Budget is not to be used to prejudge the mid-term review of Agenda 2000. In this report, we do not want agricultural reform right now. What we need is a further development of European agricultural policy. The resolutions on Agenda 2000 are for us the binding foundation. The agricultural budget must not become a quarry for every kind of desirable commodity, but must set forth a reliable agricultural policy option.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Cairo Summit gave rise to great expectation among African countries, particularly among those which hoped to see their debt cancelled. Europe’s response to this was to say that it was too great a call upon its own resources to move towards the complete cancellation of the debt. On the contrary, we affirm the political need to restore balance in the relations between African and the European Union. After having plundered the natural resources of Africa very widely, and in fact continuing to do so, we must cancel our historical debt to them by cancelling their current debt to our banks. This would enable us to pursue relations on a sounder basis. And the Members of the European Union must stop lying. We are asking African countries to respect democratic principles, but we are perpetuating antidemocratic practices in order to guarantee our own financial interests, in the style of Elf or Total, in a number of countries. We order African countries to guarantee the plurality of political parties and allow the NGOs freedom of expression, but we negotiate only with Heads of States, the majority of whom represent only themselves, forgetting to invite the NGOs to the Cairo Summit. We are asking African countries to accord women a larger place in society, but we ought to begin by establishing parity in our own countries. Need I remind you that some European Union countries have less than 10% of women members in their national parliaments? We expect the African countries to observe cease-fires, but we are fanning the flames of conflict with our arms exports to belligerents. But none of this is the key issue. As long as the European Union does not provide itself with the resources to ensure that the agreements for the granting of mandatory licences for the production of medicines to combat the AIDS pandemic are applied, expecting any progress in the African economy will remain in the realms of the pious hope. For how can one expect a country in which a quarter of its young people are dying from AIDS every year to have a booming economy? Once again, as we have already said, the European Union and the Member States must make their actions consistent with their statements. For, while we are hesitating, while we are shilly-shallying, while we are discussing, Africa is dying.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I want to begin by expressing my deep sympathy with those families who have been affected by the latest bloody events that have taken place in the area we are talking about. Like others, I also want to express my concern about what is happening and, at the same time, say that, whenever this area is talked about, the impression given is really one of crossing a minefield and of its not taking very much to provoke a reaction, almost no matter what is said. I too, however, must urge both the Commissioner and Mr Solana to do everything in their powers to press for the successful achievement of a ceasefire agreement, so that the bloody events in question might be brought to an end. If that does not happen, a chain reaction might be triggered, in other countries too, which might prove to be uncontrollable. A minor example of this is the events that took place yesterday in Copenhagen when a peaceful demonstration turned violent. Happily, no-one was killed as a result, but unfortunately a number of people were injured. What we in the EU must and shall do, therefore, is continue talking in terms of negotiation, negotiation and, again, negotiation, so that those windows which are now open do not close before we have achieved a result. A peace agreement is needed now. Otherwise, there is a strong possibility of things ending in disaster.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I want first of all to thank the chairman of the committee, who is also the rapporteur for this matter, for the work he has done. The anti-terrorist legislation to which we have had to devote ourselves following 11 September is designed to strike a balance in which we, on the one hand, respond to terrorist crimes but, on the other hand, also promote and defend legal certainty in the process. The legal certainty of the individual must be guaranteed in connection with the fight against terrorism. When three Swedish citizens were listed among those whose funds and economic resources were to be frozen following 11 September, it was very clear what difficulties arise when people, first of all, are put onto such a list; secondly, they do not know what action to take in order to appeal against a decision; and, thirdly, they do not know how they are to keep body and soul together when they have no access to what is needed to meet the exigencies of daily life. I am therefore pleased that the European Parliament can now contribute to a procedure more in keeping with legal certainty: a humanitarian exemption from the freezing of funds and economic resources, of which the rapporteur has given an account. That is something for which the Member States, including Sweden, and the European Parliament have been working over a long period. Putting people onto terrorism lists in order to prevent terrorist crimes is an administrative procedure. It is a question of implementing international law under the UN Charter. As always in the case of action taken by the authorities, legal certainty at both national and international levels is important to the individual. Moreover, improvements to the UN resolutions are now slowly taking place. One example is that the UN Sanctions Committee must, from this year, justify its decisions, something that is absolutely crucial. In the future too, the European Parliament must, at every opportunity, require that the fundamental human rights accorded by our international community be respected, even in difficult situations such as that following 11 September. Legal uncertainty still exists and, in this area, the committee’s new amendments can play a major role. We propose that the EU introduce provisions concerning processes for deleting persons from lists of those whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen. That is something we propose on the grounds that the process must become still more legally certain. The amendments that the committee is proposing and on which we have to adopt a position tomorrow are constructive, because they require a procedure for de-listing. These amendments must then be carefully considered by the international community, the Commission and the Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as we are addressing the issue of the European economy in the debate on these reports, the point I would like to emphasise is the vital importance of turning the Lisbon agenda from rhetoric into reality. Advances have been made since European leaders declared that they were going to make Europe the most competitive knowledge-based economy within ten years, but there have also been a lot of steps back. It seems to me that a fundamental aim of the Lisbon agenda is to produce economic reform and more flexible labour markets. In many cases, however, we have seen the European Union going in the opposite direction to this aspiration. Labour markets are not made more flexible by measures like the Temporary Workers Directive, which could drive hundreds or thousands of temporary workers out of employment. I am also concerned about plans to phase out some of the opt-outs to the Working Time Directive, which give additional flexibility. Of course it is important to ensure that people do not have to work excessive hours, but there are many aspects of the Working Time Directive that just add red tape and do not give proper protection to working people: these measures just make it more difficult for them to run their lives in the way they would like to. There are other proposals which I think are overreactions: the intention in the Chemicals Regulation, for example, is that one must control and regulate the use of dangerous chemicals, but this should not give rise to the disproportionate reaction we have seen from that regulation. Many items of European legislation are over-intrusive and simply add to business costs. In the end, that will cost jobs for people in Europe and very often mean that consumers end up getting a worse deal and a narrower range of choices. To make the Lisbon agenda a reality we have to cut down on the red tape produced by the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we have to be careful not to confuse fundamental problems with organisational ones. We agree that the Reconstruction Agency for Kosovo should be established in Pristina, but the Agency or the Office for the Reconstruction of Bosnia was in Sarajevo, and still faced enormous problems. In naming Pristina, we are not really saying anything other than that an agency for reconstruction in Kosovo should logically and effectively be done with the inhabitants of Kosovo. I propose nevertheless that we also discuss the way in which reconstruction will actually take place. Now, as far as this is concerned, what we know of the European Union in Bosnia is the enormous bureaucratic weight of the way we function as the European Union. In other words, instead of just focussing on Thessaloniki or Pristina, we should learn lessons from the situation in Bosnia, and try to set up autonomous structures which will be able to decide – in Pristina – on the details of the heavy reconstruction, that is: bridges, housing, streets, etc. and, at the same time, to work out the details of the reconstruction of the fabric of society. So what programme does this civilian society need in order to be able to, as Mr Haarder said, take control of reconstruction? Let us not leave this – I will not say to the KLA groups – I will simply say to the temptation to take military action which we should perhaps condemn in political terms, but which we can understand after everything that the people have been through, out of fear that a similar situation might reoccur. It is true that only democratisation will take us forwards. We could cite the example from Bosnia of the “3000 roofs for Bosnia” programme. This was a very basic programme, which consisted of saying to the population, “If you rebuild the walls of your house, we will pay for the roof, and if you have already rebuilt your roof, we will pay for your heating.” This was a programme designed to get the population active, at all levels. I would therefore like to see us think carefully about autonomous decision-making bodies in Pristina, which would give the population the power to decide, in conjunction with us, what needs to be done. I would also not want to see an excess of bureaucracy in Brussels, given the way the European Union functions as a rule. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Prodi, Mr Barnier, I would like to speak on two points. My first point is that, contrary to what Mr Chirac and Mr Prodi have claimed, there are Nice leftovers, not just for the Fifteen but also, even more so, for the Twenty-seven. In effect, the question is: are we ready for enlargement and what are our objectives? And not only is the issue of the Commission a leftover, but the lack of extension of qualified majority voting and codecision strengthens competition between the Member States, between the Fifteen and a fortiori between the Twenty-seven, and undermines the future of the European social model. As regards post-Nice, the following question has to be dealt with: do we want to continue at the same pace as Fifteen, and a fortiori as Twenty-seven? I do not think that will be possible. We must lift the consensus rule, including in a future convention. The European public interest, of which none of us is sole guardian – Mr Moscovici is right about that – cannot be based on the addition of national interests which are growing and becoming neutralised and in that regard Prime Minister Verhofstadt had a salutary message for us all.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I want primarily to concern myself with the proposal concerning the supplementary supervision of the financial conglomerates with which I had a lot to do in my job as shadow rapporteur of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. First and foremost, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Lipietz, for the huge amount of work he has done in connection with Parliament’s debate of this proposal for a directive. Next, I should like to thank Mr Radwan and Mrs Villiers, with whom I have had very close contact during our work with a view to tomorrow’s vote. Last but not least, I should also like to thank Commissioner Bolkestein for his work on bringing about a genuine internal market for financial services. With the active participation of the Commission, we in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have, where far and away the majority of points are concerned, found common solutions to the problems raised in different quarters. The background to the practical proposal is that we wish to secure stable financial markets in Europe. We want to avoid scandals along the lines of Enron. At the same time, however, there must be no more regulation than is necessary. What is most important, therefore, is to secure effective supervision to prevent financial conglomerates from using the same capital to consolidate their positions in several different places. I should like to express my support for the oral amendments to be tabled by Mr Radwan to Amendments Nos 44, 46 and 48 in connection with tomorrow’s vote. I appreciate the Commission’s also being able to accept the amendments tabled. For me, adoption of the proposal tomorrow will be further proof that the European Parliament accepts co-responsibility when necessary. I am a great believer in our not dragging matters out if possible solutions emerge. We have found those solutions here in Parliament, and so it is merely up to the Council to deliver the rest.

Political group: ELDR