GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Savary, the difficulties many Member States are having in accepting the harmonisation of driving restrictions applicable to heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on the trans-European road network at weekends and on public holidays are well known, given the various failed attempts of the Commission to implement the directive on a transparent system of harmonised rules. The Commission’s rewording of the proposal is to be welcomed; it is a balanced proposal and is entirely justified given the requirements for legal certainty and the growing divergence between national provisions, which set transit countries in radical opposition to countries that are geographically remote. The territory of the European Union now constitutes a single area without frontiers as regards roads, and the forthcoming enlargement will mean increased tensions in the absence of minimum harmonisation. I also welcome the excellent work undertaken by the rapporteur, Mr Savary, particularly on the proposals for amendments on the creation of a European road information system, on extending exemptions for the transport of flowers and fresh horticultural products, as well as on the social conditions arising from the disparities in national provisions that could be resolved by social measures. The report has suggested some measures, such as periods of compensatory rest time and extra pay arrangements. I think that this already provides a good solution to this problem.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am speaking here especially in the capacity of rapporteur of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. First of all, I would like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur for her report. I am delighted that we now have a broad-based compromise on the issue of discharge which enables the Commission to make progress and to solve a number of problems which have cropped up recently. I would also like to comment on a few points which are included in the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Firstly, we share the Court of Auditors’ criticism regarding the inadequate measurability of the effects upon employment of the structural fund measures. I would ask the Commission to pay more attention to this aspect. We have, slowly but surely, made tremendous progress in this field, but this does not seem to be evident from the way we are dealing with the funds. Secondly, I would like to mention the issue of financing. There have been problems recently regarding the payment credits of the Social Fund, in particular. Unfortunately, these problems have not been solved. This merits further attention too. Finally, I would like to mention the problem surrounding the Leonardo programme. You will be aware that the Leonardo programme has played an extremely important role in the events which have led to the previous Commission resigning from office. Nevertheless, we wish to underline that this association needs to be brought to a definite close, and it is also important that sufficient consideration be given to the lessons we have learnt in the field of BAT. These are the key points which I would like to highlight here. The Committee on Budgetary Control has naturally been unable to adopt all these points in their entirety. This would not have been appropriate either, but I would like to take this opportunity to add these specific points to the list which is, in fact, already before you.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to clarify whether this resolution is compatible with the resolution that we passed in January of this year, drawing attention to the problems of the prisoners of war who are still in Kuwait, or whether this resolution is to be taken as contradictory to our resolution of January of this year?

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in introducing my proposal, I would like to remind you of the European Parliament resolution voted on 18 June 1987. In this resolution, there were four points which constituted inescapable obstacles in examining the possible accession of Turkey to the Community. Let me remind you of these four points. Firstly, the refusal of the Turkish Government to acknowledge the genocide previously committed against the Armenians; secondly, its reluctance to apply the standards of international law in its dispute with Greece; thirdly, the maintenance of Turkish occupation forces in Cyprus; fourthly, the denial of the Kurdish problem. Nothing has changed since then. Of course, the resolution we are voting on today does repeat some of these points, but we must insist absolutely on the fact that the current situation in Turkey is not acceptable to us nor in terms of the Copenhagen criteria, as indeed highlighted in the third paragraph. It is up to Turkey to change its attitude if it really wishes to join the European Union. It is up to them to change. Obviously, for us, there is no way around the question of Cyprus, and Turkey cannot conceal the Kurdish problem. These are key issues. We must remain firm in our demands if we wish to be credible and if we want Turkey to change. We know that democracy can be strong in a country, as history has recently shown, only if this country is able to recognise the rights of minorities and to respect them. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, allow me to hide my amazement at your reply. It is, of course, the case that with this conduct of conduct, we only have a very weak tool at our disposal to combat inadmissible arms exports. I would like to ask you if there has ever been consultation within the Council to tighten up this code of conduct or to make it more easily enforceable? I fear that the same fate that has befallen our foreign and security policy as a whole, and which has been discussed so many times, will also befall this code of conduct. At the end of the day, we rely on goodwill and, if that is not there, we might as well forget it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Everyone is united in condemning non-declared work, or the black economy, as it is commonly called. At the same time, however, many people resort to using this cheap workforce. The figures speak for themselves, as the ‘black economy’ is equivalent to between 7 and 16 percent of the figure of the GDP of the European Union. Quite obviously this is intolerable in our Member States which are facing persistently high unemployment rates which are still high despite a clear downturn in recent years. I further endorse the rapporteur’s insistence that combating the black economy is to a great extent a direct contribution towards combating unemployment. I am well aware that finding solutions is not an easy matter. It is clear, nonetheless, that the Member States would be well advised to coordinate their efforts in order to establish a proactive strategy to combat this scourge. The first requirement is for a list of the most affected sectors and the main categories concerned to be drawn up within each Member State. This survey must be followed up in a practical way by implementing measures appropriate to each situation. These measures are to be included in action programmes. These programmes must then be incorporated in national action plans related to the Employment Guidelines in order to establish mutual transparency and assess the effectiveness of the actions undertaken. There is, moreover, a clear link between the level of taxes and deductions, and the extent as well as the growth of the black economy. Member States must therefore devote some effort to reducing the taxes and deductions that weigh down on employment. The reduction in VAT rates for services that are highly labour intensive, a sector where undeclared work is particularly prevalent, a step that Member States are entitled to take under the Council Decision of 28 February 2000, will most certainly have beneficial effects on the fight against the black economy. Like the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I would like to see the Member States that do not yet use this option review their decisions. That is why I voted in favour of this report, which represents a further step in achieving a social Europe.

Political group: PSE
I wholeheartedly supported the Commission’s proposal on European citizenship. Of course, it is not easy to increase the political dimension of European citizenship by decree. Clearly, it is essential that we strengthen measures on the ground to make citizens understand that we have provided them with considerable scope so that they can participate in the European area for citizens. This is the price of achieving legitimacy for the European Union. We must find channels of communication which will enable us to teach citizens about the challenges that they themselves must contend with in the future. It is a matter of regret that, amongst the requirements that have come to the fore, the EU is not creating a specific history course which would describe the various uprisings, wars and revolutions which have taken place on the continent of Europe as being often difficult periods in achieving the vision that some have held for fifty years. - Van Brempt report (A5-0224/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Speaking both personally and as a member of the Confederal Group of the , the left-wing group of the European Parliament, I would like to remind you in the clearest possible terms of the principles that must inform the assessment of this European rail package. The first principle is that rail transport is a public service. Where rail transport is still a public service, it must remain so. Where liberalisation has severely reduced its status as a public service, this must be restored. The second principle is this. Europe is a densely populated continent, with many urban areas. It also has rural and mountainous areas affected by desertification. On our continent rail transport plays an essential role in national and regional development. Only the railways can put a stop to two interrelated tendencies whose consequences are abundantly clear. On the one hand there is the unchecked concentration of people in urban areas and on the other the desertification of the countryside. Together, they are laying waste to our land. The third principle is as follows. Rail transport is the only effective answer to the rapidly rising demand to transport more and more people and goods. It is also the only answer to the apparently contradictory but equally important need to preserve our environment and increase the quality of our lives. These three principles are convergent and interlinked. These are the grounds on which my group and I oppose the compulsory privatisation of the railways. We also oppose all decisions or measures seeking to regulate the rail industry solely by market forces. Countries that went down this road are in a worse position than those that did not. They are in a worse position as lines have been closed. Worse, they have serious safety problems. I am sure you know which countries I am referring to. I need not name them. On the basis of these three principles, our group opposed what I would term Mr Jarzembowski’s compulsive desire for liberalisation. This was also the basis for our rejection of the harmonisation of the networks as proposed in the Sterckx report. We would prefer harmonisation to be less of a herald of liberalisation. We therefore endorsed the Savary report, concerning the creation of a European Railway Agency. Representatives of employees’ organisations would sit on its Administrative Board. Lastly, it was because of these three principles that we voted for Mrs Ainardi’s proposals. The latter provide for social and environmental issues to be taken into account and for high safety requirements. Following the decisions of the Council after the first reading, and the recent votes in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, we will again oppose liberalisation of freight transport by 2006 and of passenger transport by 2007. We will establish our final position on the Sterckx report on the basis of the results of the vote on the amendments in plenary. We will continue to support the reports and positions of Mr Savary and Mrs Ainardi. They are in line with the principles we hold dear.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Slovakia has, over the past year, made considerable progress in the negotiations about EU membership, and this certainly deserves credit, also in view of the internal problems which the government coalition has faced in that country. Slovakia is now, since yesterday, at the top of the list of negotiating countries, which is, given that country’s past, no mean feat. But in the case of Slovakia too, preparations have not yet entirely finished. Judging from the schedule, a great deal of work will need to be done this year. Despite the optimistic note in my report, there are still points of criticism and points that will weigh heavily when this Parliament comes to reaching a final verdict. They are not new and concern in many cases other candidate countries too. They involve the fight against corruption which, in Slovakia, is still too widespread. They also concern improving the government’s implementing capacity, a topic, in fact, to which this Parliament ought to devote a separate debate. In addition, the problems of the Roma should be tackled more swiftly. Also, an effective regional policy should be developed as a means of fighting excessive levels of unemployment in that country. Additionally, effective border control should be implemented in the framework of future Schengen cooperation. For a number of these points, demands are high. We do not want perfection but visible progress towards an average level we have in the current EU. It is precisely the advocates of enlargement, to which, fortunately, also the large majority of this Parliament belongs, who have the responsibility of carefully testing the acceding countries at the end of the journey, on the basis of the criteria formulated in the past. In September, parliamentary elections will be held in Slovakia and there is already a great deal of speculation about the outcome. It is up to the Slovakian citizens to decide, but as in 1998, these elections are, in fact, about Slovakia’s future in Europe. I hope that the turn-out will be as high as possible, and I expect that the outcome will lead to the forming of a new government that will be able to work with the European Union in a manner that is just as positive as the current government.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am taking the floor instead of Mr Lipietz, who should have been presenting this report on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, with his customary flair. Unfortunately, Mr Lipietz was unable to come to Strasbourg for this sitting for pressing personal reasons. I am therefore taking his place, being a member of the same committee and of the same group. We are all aware that financial conglomerates own a substantial proportion of the domestic financial markets of many Member States. Some of them belong to bigger groups that are present on the EU’s financial markets. If the businesses belonging to conglomerates of this type were to face financial difficulties, they could seriously affect the overall financial system. At the present time, these cross-sector financial groups are not adequately regulated by current legislation. Therefore, we can only welcome the fact that the Commission, in the spring of 2001, presented a proposal for a directive to bring in the supervision of financial conglomerates such as these. The events of the past year, such as the collapse of e-commerce, numerous financial scandals, including the highly publicised collapse of Enron, and also increased pressure on insurance companies in the wake of 11 September, have inevitably highlighted the need for better regulation of this sector. The Commission proposal and the amendments by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs received Parliament's firm support at first reading stage at the beginning of this year. The Council also made swift progress on this dossier by reaching a common position shortly afterwards. The outcome of the Council’s deliberations is also extremely encouraging. Parliament can most certainly welcome the fact that the Council has retained almost all the elements contained in the amendments adopted by the European Parliament at first reading and that the common position has taken sufficient account of the main concerns expressed by Parliament. Despite the fact that there are a few areas where the common position could have been improved further, your rapporteur’s major concern is to see this new and enhanced regulatory framework implemented as soon as possible. He therefore proposes – and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs approved this position almost unanimously – that the common position be adopted in its current form. This will enable us to ensure that European conglomerates will, in the very near future, be governed by the most up-to-date, most efficient and most effective regulation and controls possible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there is no doubt that the EU-Lebanon Association Agreement goes beyond relations with the Lebanese Government and takes on an extraordinary importance within the network of relations based on dialogue and cooperation in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, especially at times like these when the threat of war looms so large and risks undermining the development of cooperation between our peoples and harming the still vulnerable Lebanese Government. There have been many years of war with Syria but also with Israel, with external interference and invasions, which have not yet been definitively settled; also a civil war which has devastated social and family relationships, though the International Community’s neglect has done damage too. Lebanon’s rebirth could lie in that strength which previously was its weakness: the intertwining of cultures and religions, rooted in the country but different from each other. The Lebanese Government should be acknowledged for having managed to maintain a balance between the parties and for wishing to rebuild a sovereign country in a difficult democratic process, because there are still clear violations of freedom of expression, human rights, social inequality and corruption. In particular, I am referring to the situation of the Palestinian refugees, who have been prohibited by law from having any opportunity to work, for healthcare or for travel and it is hypocritical of the Lebanese to assert that this is because the refugees have to return to Palestine. In this connection, when developing relations and projects with Lebanon, we have to persevere and find means to ensure compliance with the agreements and commitments which are made, even if the example of the EU-Israel Agreement and Israel’s blatant violation of Article 2, certainly do not provide a guarantee that this will be respected. I nevertheless consider it extremely important for this step to be taken, in the clear and certain knowledge that it is essential to help rebuild this country; but it is essential that this country is rebuilt on the clear basis of freedom of expression and human rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would like to bring to your attention an incident last week where two football fans were tragically murdered on their way to watch their team play in the UEFA Cup. Football is a sport which transcends the world. Almost every country plays football. It is known as a beautiful game. In about three months Belgium and Holland will play host to Euro 2000. There is every likelihood that incidents such as those that happened last week will be repeated again in Belgium and Holland. Can I ask you, through your good offices, to contact all the Member States who are involved, to try and keep such problems to a minimum?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have adopted a clear position on the ECB Governing Council's proposal, Commissioner, but the Commission, unfortunately, has not done so. You have shied away from it! We want the Council of Heads of State or Government to devise and adopt a different model, with other weighting criteria being used in this context. The draft on changes to the voting modalities proposed by the ECB Governing Council and endorsed by the European Commission, is unnecessary and unjust. It is unnecessary because we are certainly not under the time pressure that you, Commissioner, have described. Summer 2006, in a best-case scenario, is theoretically the earliest that we will achieve a figure of 15 eurozone members. We therefore do have enough time. With this model, you will create a two-class system among the members of the ECB Governing Council, with the governors of the smaller countries' central banks suffering a severe curtailment of their rights. In a single currency zone, it is essential for every member of the ECB Governing Council to have a permanent and equal vote. To ensure that this is guaranteed in future too, and thus to retain the existing rules, we have proposed that other weighting criteria should be used. Our colleague Dr Friedrich has already spoken about this. My proposal to use population as one of these criteria has not found support among a majority in the committee so far this time. Since the rules have to be agreed unanimously, there will be no movement without a compromise. The rotation system, Commissioner, is a bad compromise. I have proposed that in addition to a simple majority of votes, at least half the population of the Member States of the eurozone must be represented. This will avoid majority decisions being taken in the ECB Governing Council without taking sufficient account of the economic realities in the European Union. Population as a criterion is more appropriate and more representative, for a variety of reasons, than other criteria such as the relative size of the financial services sector or GDP. Current and precise population figures are available for all Member States; they are calculated on a per capita and therefore absolutely comparable basis, and take account of the fact that the primary focus of a rational monetary policy based on the EU treaties must not be on the capital markets, but on the people affected by it.

Political group: PPE-DE