GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The European Council is changing its presidency but liberalism is still in control. The Swedish programme talks enthusiastically about competitiveness, competition and free trade. This time around, there is hardly any mention of the social agenda and other nods in the direction of solidarity, the favourite alibis of the outgoing French Presidency, and the emphasis is purely on economic criteria. The criteria for an antisocial Europe which will mean insecurity and poverty for the workers of both Member States and candidate countries, taking as its slogans the ‘flexible organisation of work’ and the ‘modernisation of social protection’, just the kind of thing to encourage the mediaeval ambitions of the bosses. Nor does this document make any secret of its desire to ‘create a business-friendly climate’. With feigned piety, the EU is preparing itself for a regal handout of new markets in energy, transport, and even intellectual property. And also the criteria of an imperial Europe, the kingpin of capitalist globalisation, which intends to ‘move, within the WTO, towards specific liberalisation measures’. Today, just like yesterday, in Nice as in Gothenburg, we shall oppose this policy in order to create a social Europe, a Europe for workers and peoples, which will begin by levelling upwards the best of the European acquis.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a few days ago a delegation from Parliament’s Committee on Development and Cooperation, led by its chairman and which included, amongst others, our colleague Teresa Almeida Garrett, visited Angola. They had the opportunity to see on the ground the seriousness and the scale of the humanitarian tragedy, which requires European and international aid to be sent as a matter of urgency. This must be done not only to improve the living conditions of an entire people, but because this is the last chance to save many lives, above all of children, who are dying every day of hunger and disease in the most scandalous silence, without the energy and will even to cry. This aid must be provided effectively and quickly. Often, in this amazing bureaucracy that we are becoming, by the time we decide to act, it is already too late. Angola needs emergency humanitarian aid which can be translated, for example, into realities as practical as the urgent dispatch of seeds and farming tools before the rainy season starts in October, to prevent another year of famine. We have made our priorities clear in the motion for a resolution that we endorse and support: we must provide emergency humanitarian aid; we must contribute to the consolidation of peace, which includes turning UNITA into a political party and integrating its members into national life; we must support democratic conciliation, seeking to ensure legitimisation through democratic and free elections which respect fundamental freedoms, specifically the freedoms of information, association and expression, and we must pursue economic consolidation and social reorganisation. As we have already said in this Chamber on numerous occasions, Angola is a huge country with the potential to assert itself as an influential and important regional power and thereby to contribute to the democratic stabilisation of the entire region and to its economic and social progress. The war limited this potential, but all options are now open and depend on the will of the Angolan people, but also on our support. Let us ensure that our resolve does not falter and thereby weaken theirs!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Union’s achievement has been to interpose a European-wide transnational legal order between national and international law based on the Treaties which, as the European Court of Justice has pointed out, have some of the characteristics of a constitution. No-one would hold up the existing structure of the Treaties as a model of their kind and it must be in the interests of the politician, administrator, businessman and citizen to simplify their structure. The proposals in the Duhamel report which do that must be welcomed. The second part of his report is more ambitious and hence contentious, questioning the mechanics of the way in which the Treaties – and hence the quasi-constitution – is changed. It is true that to an English common lawyer this is unknown territory. But to those in the United States, Canada or Australia this is much more familiar ground. It is an important topic which requires serious attention. I say to my own countrymen that it should not be dismissed out of hand. Rather, while I am far from convinced by a number of the detailed proposals in the report, I welcome the debate it opens because it raises important questions which require thought-through, considered and dispassionate answers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, we have gone from an Agenda 2000 mid-term review of the CAP to a reform that will be valid until 2013, in other words for ten years. It is therefore important that we make no mistakes in our fundamental choices. With this in mind, Commissioner, you have proposed two major objectives, multifunctionality and competitiveness in agriculture, both in the light of the desire to increase the European Union’s room for manoeuvre in WTO negotiations. On behalf of my group, I would therefore like to support this promotion of a multifunctional agriculture to meet the expectations of our society and underline the adequacy of resources, the conditionality of aids and the strengthening of actions in the second pillar. I would like to stress, however, that the rapporteur, Mr Cunha, has had the pertinent idea of increasing the modulation of aid rather than adopting your combination of degression and modulation, which is complex, administratively cumbersome and would leave few resources for the rural pillar. Turning now to the objective of competitiveness which, you say, entails reductions in prices for cereals and milk, I would like to point out that the application of multifunctionality will result in an overall increase in production costs, while at the same time direct aid to holdings will fall in the 15 Member States. In this context, to follow your recommendations would be unwise, to say the least, especially since it seems to me that the idea of Europe as an agricultural exporter needs to be looked at again to take account of the new market of 450 million consumers that we will shortly be. You seem, Commissioner, to see the decoupling of aid as a miracle solution, but it would be better if this were done partially and gradually, to put the Union in a better negotiating position at the WTO, but also so that we can make a first-stage appraisal before possibly going further. My group, the , is proposing an amendment to this effect to increase decoupling to 50% for arable crops and male cattle from the time it is first implemented. It is a solution that combines boldness with caution and I ask all my fellow Members to support it. Finally, as it is legitimate to make a better distribution between farmers, crops and regions of the aids intended for holdings, my group fully supports the Cunha report’s Amendment No 61. This amendment in fact recommends that multifunctional credits be allocated according to the criteria of area and employment from 2007. Over all, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in the absence of co-decision I think we have contributed enlightened and well thought-out opinions. I therefore want to conclude by congratulating Mr Cunha on his excellent report, which is the basis of the debate, and those by the other rapporteurs, who build on it consistently.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like at the very outset to join in expressing thanks to Mrs McNally, who, in the Committee on Industry, has handled this topic with a very great deal of prudence. The discussions with the Committee on Budgets were of particular importance to us, as this is an area where the Committee on Industry considers it very important that programmes such as these should be adequately funded, and I also want to express my gratitude to Commissioner de Palacio for making it possible to include 2003 in these considerations and get these programmes up and running as soon as possible. We are all aware that the international energy crisis, in particular, means that action is urgently needed. Europe is dependent on energy imports to a very great degree, with, at present, some 50% of its energy being imported, and we will very soon have to face rates of increase that we find utterly unjustifiable. That is why it is important that this programme should receive special emphasis. This multi-annual programme will enable us – or so I hope – to start to turn European energy policy around, and, in particular, the use of energy – a subject on which we have adopted many framework directives already – must be one of our priorities for the future. It is of course not only the benchmarks – which have recently been constantly improving – that help us to implement this at the national level, but primarily the models of best practice, and this is where the multi-annual programme is an extremely important gauge, enabling us to see in which countries, with which technologies and with which processes, we are achieving the greatest successes. I therefore believe that this programme sees us taking a great step forward in European energy policy, and so I thank you in advance for your good cooperation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, let me make one thing clear. The EPP Group did not itself ask but was asked to postpone this. I personally said that I could agree to that. But there are many other views in our group. I could agree to postponement under one condition, namely if Mrs Theorin used the time up to November II to improve her report, for as it stands our group cannot endorse it. I want to make one thing quite clear, and it is a point of principle. If we do not manage to complete the voting by Thursday lunchtime, then the normal procedure is for us to continue voting on Thursday evening. It is not in order for us to postpone the vote because some colleagues cannot be here in the evening. So, to put it in a nutshell: on behalf of my group I would agree to postpone it to November II, if Mrs Theorin states that she will continue to work on her report and to improve it. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would ask you to check the second part of recital M. The Swedish-language version states that it is a question of strengthening European citizenship. The English version uses a similar concept, right enough, while the French version talks about nationalité. Nationality and citizenship are not the same thing. European citizenship is what we support.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I will not actually speak for very long, but, so far, if I disregard the comments made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, only those in favour of the process have been allowed to speak. We do have individual opinions within our Group. The delegates in the Group are not unanimous here. I would therefore like to speak as someone who is against this process. I would ask the Members who this morning requested that the vote be postponed in the absence of a quorum to consider the following: if you want to reform the Rules of Procedure, which are indispensable in this House, if you want to improve our working practice, you cannot achieve this through impulsive actions; instead you must initiate a full debate on reform of the House. (Applause) The delegates who are here this morning, who have done their work, who spent yesterday evening preparing for the work to be carried out today, are being punished here today, by a spontaneous action, for the fact that not everyone in Parliament has done their homework. I do not think this is fair to these delegates! Finally, I would ask you to consider the following, and I am addressing this to my colleagues in the and in the -wing Groups of this House, who have the somewhat remarkable impression that through the Rules of Procedure you can change the free mandate into an imperative mandate with a duty to be present for all votes. That is nonsense! You will never be able to compel a freely elected delegate to take part in a parliamentary session or a vote if that delegate does not want to. This is why I consider this morning’s action to be impulsive, although it did perhaps serve a purpose, but, in terms of highlighting the key issue, it was quite unhelpful! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, right at the outset it has to be said that my colleague, Mr Nisticò, as rapporteur, has done some excellent work in his improvement of the articles on the issue of safety in this directive. It is of the utmost importance for all EU citizens that the single market in blood and blood products that has been set as an objective cannot work without reliable safety standards. At the same time, however, it must be said that we have managed to reach agreement on how levels of safety can still be substantially increased by making unremunerated blood donation a fundamental principle. The Council of Europe has undertaken some important work to increase safety with regard to blood donations and promote the principle of non-remuneration. This would not prohibit the payment of travel expenses and compensation for lost working time, which is important for donors of plasma in particular, who often have to travel to another area and give up a lot of their time. It is a good principle for the EU too, but if we are just going to be satisfied with making recommendations to Member States regarding practices in the manner of the Council of Europe we shall have lost something essential in our role as legislator. If, on the other hand, we give Member States the right to refuse imports of blood and blood products that have been donated for payment from second and third countries we shall at the same time be weakening the basis of the original aim of the whole directive, the creation of a single market. Community legislation is generally of a high quality and easily manages to control even the small details of human life – too small, one is tempted to say. One cannot help but wonder why this particular directive was unable to distinguish ordinary blood donations from others, such as plasma donations. In the case of the former, we could have introduced an absolute ban on remuneration without any need for exceptions and, regarding the latter, we could have permitted remuneration as long as the shortage of plasma and other special products make it necessary. I shall wait for the Commission to submit a new proposal in which this important detail can be corrected.

Political group: PPE-DE
The EU has been a willing donor but has, in the past, and I emphasise in the past, failed to deliver effective help when it is required and where it is most needed. Such failure has left many countries poorer today. Fortunately, and I disagree with the last speaker, the Gemelli report strengthens the Commission proposals. Commissioner Nielson and his team have done a great job and Mr Gemelli’s report – an excellent report – reinforces those new proposals. The acid test will be whether the next ten or twenty years of EU aid will reduce poverty substantially – I disagree with the last speaker, we will never eradicate poverty. The aim is to reduce substantially the poverty and misery experienced by so many. The Gemelli report attempts to take a fresh approach, a bold approach. Out with theory, the models which did not produce results. In with practical ideas to promote real development: development of human resources, so that indigenous people acquire technical skills; development of vocational skills for rural production, so that people can grow, harvest, process, package and sell their goods for added value with which they can then buy their education, health and homes; building capacity through transfer of technology to SMEs, promoting use of sustainable energy, application of information technology, enhancing awareness of social education, health and human rights. These are the ideas in the Gemelli report which support Commissioner Nielson’s report and good work. Therefore, this important report should be fully approved by this House because it should improve the efficacy of EU aid. It will be a blueprint for other donors and I hope that all Members from all sides will support this report and the Commission as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Vice-President, I would also like to congratulate you on your election. Like my fellow Members, who have underlined that this was a report of titanic proportions, requiring a great deal of work, I would like to use my two minutes’ speaking time to try to put forward what I personally believe to be the essential points, bearing in mind those involved, particularly the local and regional authorities and the citizens. In my view, the Zappalà report, which was approved by the Committee on Legal Affairs, improves on the Commission’s original proposal for a directive. On the pretext of simplifying and updating the existing legislation, the Commission’s proposal does indeed propose to make the regulations uniform, but the main way, if not the only way, it achieves this is through liberalisation and this is something I cannot accept. Thus, when it comes to using prices as a criterion for awarding contracts, the lowest price is favoured over social and environmental criteria. I believe therefore, as do other Members, that the stakes are very high. Given their activity, public authorities should favour employment and sustainable development but decisions are instead based on financial criteria alone. However, in March 2000, the European Trade Union Confederation pointed out how much importance the Community regime for public contracts placed upon the concept of price, to the detriment of social and territorial cohesion, equality and employment. As I said, the Zappalà report improves on the Commission’s directive, particularly by raising the thresholds on opening up public procurement contracts by 50% and also by taking into greater consideration the social and environmental criteria. If adopted in its current form, I think it might represent an improvement on the current situation. Despite this, it is essentially the approach of liberalisation that is favoured. In a communication of 15 October 2001, the Commission was forced to put forward the option of integrating social and environmental aspects into procedures for the award of public contracts. However, this communication is not legally binding in character. We must therefore go further and approach it in a different way; this is the sense of the amendments tabled by my group. Within the award criteria, employment, the environment and town planning must be put on the same footing as economic cost. Of course, my group’s vote will depend on the outcome of the vote on the committee’s amendments and also on the amendments that will be proposed tomorrow.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I must start by expressing my delight at the resumption by Israel of the peace process with the Palestinians and the Syrians. This is the tangible result of the unshakeable desire of Ehud Barak and his government to ensure peace and security. However, everyone knows deep down that nothing is ever easy and that nothing has yet been settled in this respect. Whatever the state of the negotiations, the best and the worst scenarios are still possible. This is why, with regard to Europe, I have three suggestions to make. Firstly, we Europeans must try to stop harping on about certain things, making criticisms or marking aspects as good or bad. Secondly, we should not over-exploit the lightning tours of the Middle East which often occur in the wake of Madeleine Albright. Finally, we must engage in comprehensive discussions with each of the partners, particularly the Israelis, to properly gauge their margins for manoeuvre and to determine the precise points which we can push forward. In order to do this, we must personally meet Ehud Barak because he has the keys to peace in his hands. I am sure that our Palestinian friends would prefer a Europe which is more understanding with regard to Israel but which, at the same time, would be capable, like the USA, of exerting pressure to break any stalemates. It is time to stop lamenting our lack of political weight. If we want to move from being observers to being participants, we must know how to pay the political price for this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, once again, we are handling the subject of ‘Protection of animals during transport’. This is a long-running issue, and I unreservedly support the report Mr Maat has presented. We all know that there are already several directives on this in the European Union, and legislation to transpose it in the Member States. We are all in favour of comprehensive animal protection and opposed to methods of transport which inflict needless suffering, particularly on animals destined for slaughter. Were all these positive laws to be transposed and followed up everywhere, this debate would not be necessary. That is, however, not the case. Pictures of unacceptable transport conditions provide repeated evidence of this. We should, though, not lose sight of the fact that there are a few good things to report on this area. There are some examples of the transportation of animals which already meet the requirements of animal protection. The idea of slaughter in the immediate vicinity of the place of origin is also widely being put into practice. Slaughter as close to the farm as possible is something I greatly support. Modern methods of preservation make the export of meat even to distant areas thoroughly feasible. We are right to demand feeding and watering breaks during the transportation of animals. We will also have to give future consideration to how to minimise stress to the animals when being unloaded or reloaded before and after these breaks. We could certainly aim to have the vehicles transporting animals to slaughter equipped in such a way that the animals could remain on board the vehicle during short breaks and be provided for there. Transport, space, the way in which the vehicles are driven, ventilated and heated, loading and unloading procedures have, if they are made suitable, the greatest effect on improving the protection of animals. This report makes its contribution to that and I ask for it to be supported across this House.

Political group: PPE-DE