GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
It seems that for some Member States, enlargement of the EU boils down to an opportunity to buy as big a market as possible for their own domestic companies as cheaply as possible. This will result in the contributions to the structural funds that have already been established being redistributed amongst a larger number of Member States than initially planned by 2006. There will be much less money available to the farmers in the new Member States than to their counterparts in the present Member States. Things could have turned out worse, but thanks to the compromise proposed by Denmark and to Poland’s tenacity, the Copenhagen Summit goes some way to bridging the gap between rich and poor. The Netherlands’ calculated efforts in particular have failed. That is not likely to prevent Central Europe from being the poor cousin of the West for a long time to come. If the majority of voters vote in favour of accession to the EU, hopefully of their own free will and not as the result of a propaganda bombardment, enlargement will happen in 2004, probably including half of the island of Cyprus. The EU must make sure that it does not become involved in a war for this island or succumb to pressure to allow Turkey to join quickly without applying standards for democracy and human rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the accident involving the Egyptian aircraft has shocked people in Europe. The tragic death of these tourists, most of them French, has demonstrated that there are still insufficient safety measures in place. The public wants to know how it is possible, when safety regulations are international, widely known and should be widely applied, for an aircraft that is not allowed access to Swiss airspace to be allowed to fly in other European countries. The Commission took an initiative more than six years ago, and I am delighted that the Commissioner gave us another account of those events. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the directive. A dispute about Gibraltar between Spain and the United Kingdom has held this directive up for years. After 11 September, and especially in view of the ensuing crisis in aviation, people have again begun to realise how very important safety is. As the rapporteur for the safety of aircraft from third countries, I am pleased with the promptness with which at least this Parliament has acted and has accepted a number of amendments at first and second reading which we still need to debate. I am delighted that the Commissioner has pledged her support to Parliament and I am convinced that the trialogue will be very fruitful. I hope that the Council's response will also be very positive. The most significant difference of opinion between the Commission and Council concerns information to the public. We thought that the Commission was rather reserved in this respect. As rapporteur, I take the view that we must ensure that every European citizen who boards a plane at one of our airports should have the certainty that this aircraft has been inspected according to the same standards and that regulations are also being complied with. This is why we need more European solutions. The European Aviation Safety Agency should also be able to play its role to the full so that our citizens can be informed. We must question whether keeping data anonymous is not a culpable omission at a specific point in time. I cannot accept that a company that is branded unsafe should not be made known to the public. I am sorry I had so little time, but I would like to thank the Commissioner and my fellow-Members for the support that they wish to express in the context of this report, and for the initiative they are taking. I will certainly come and listen.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly, I want to draw attention to the absence of a number of issues in the social policy area. Secondly, I want to stress the need to be careful not to damage our European institutions by blowing up into a major scandal matters which are important in relation to Eurostat but which, bearing in mind the prospective elections, might do untold damage to our institutions if pursued too strongly. It is deeply regrettable that the Commission has still not come forward with the promised initiatives highlighted again and again by the European Parliament: the collective rights of employees, social security for atypical workers, protection against individual dismissal, revision of the working time directive and of the European Works Council directive. The Commission also seems to be stalling on the other important areas, such as minimum income. It has produced a detailed study on the costs of non-social Europe which concluded that, while the so-called costs of social policy are usually immediately visible, the benefits are more difficult to identify and quantify. However, that social policy contributes to the quality of the labour market and the formation of social capital. In view of the recent coverage of, for example, charges for wheelchairs at Dublin Airport by Ryanair, it is important that the Commission comes forward with the promised regulation on the contract between passengers and airlines, particularly for passengers with disabilities. It is obvious from the opening speeches in this morning's debate that the election campaign is already under way. I would ask Members to be particularly careful not to undermine the confidence of Europe's electorate by going over the top about scandals. It is important to root out corruption, but we should be extremely cautious how we present this to our electorate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, as all chocolate-lovers know, proper chocolate is made from cocoa butter. The addition of any other fats spoils the flavour. Indeed the 1973 directive, which prohibited the use of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, was intended to safeguard this quality. With the inclusion of new countries in the European Union, some derogations to this strict ban came to be granted. Harmonisation was essential in the name of the free movement of goods. The Commission then had the choice of setting the European standard at the maximum quality level and extending the ban to all Member States but, under pressure from multinational companies wishing to reduce their production costs, in April 1996 the Commission proposed a directive authorising the addition of a minimum level of vegetable fats. At first reading, Parliament got involved in a dangerous procedure of accepting the directive subject to certain conditions. The Council leapt into the breach, adopting its common position, which recognises the designation ‘chocolate’ even for products with other vegetable fats added. Once again we see the concept of profits for the few triumph over quality for all. At second reading, however, the European Parliament can thwart this directive which would have serious implications if it were applied. Both consumers and small specialist chocolate-makers would suffer a reduction in quality and standards would be reduced to the lowest level. ACP cocoa-producing countries would experience a considerable reduction in their market and their income. This would involve more than USD 300 million for the Ivory Coast alone. To say that they are extremely worried is an understatement. Out of concern for the interests of consumers and the ACP countries, the great majority of my Group is in favour of banning the use of vegetable fats in order to safeguard the authenticity and the quality of real chocolate. We have therefore tabled a motion to reject the Council’s common position. The small specialist chocolate-makers came to warn Members of Parliament at January’s part-session in Strasbourg. So, I ask all the Members who declared their solidarity with them to support our motion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Reino Paasilinna for his thorough and excellent work in preparing this report, but I would also like to thank the Commission, which has done so much in support of this eEurope initiative and the expansion of the Internet. As the Commission has stated, there has been a lot of progress in the past few years in the EU telecommunications sector, but there is still a lot to be learnt where the mobile phone market is concerned. For instance, the availability of carrier pre-selection should be considered, and this facility made available to consumers, if studies confirm that they are going to benefit from this pre-selection. In future, it is incumbent on the Commission to ensure more vigorously than ever that the ‘roaming’ fees charged to users by operators are brought down in all EU countries to a sensible level based on actual costs. At the same time, the Commission must ensure that the fees collected from the operators remain under control. The EU’s operating logic thus falls into two stages. The operators are not allowed to collect fees from the users, but neither must the public authority collect from the operators. The costs to the operator might become unreasonably high, should the new generation mobile spectrum be auctioned. Auctioning may also distort competition, if operators start making ‘tactical’ bids for the spectrum in order to harm the position of their competitors at auction. Therefore ‘beauty contests’ between the various operators are clearly more consumer-friendly alternatives. The latest UMTS auction in Great Britain, where prices soared sky high, will, in any case, set the alarm bells ringing. After the hammer has gone down, it is always the consumer who foots the bill – and that is exactly what we do not want, all of us being consumers ourselves. If we also want to introduce the Internet into schools and libraries and make it available for everybody on a very large scale in future, and if we also want to utilise its future potential in competition with the USA, the Internet will have to be affordable to all.

Political group: PPE-DE
Can I congratulate Mrs Boumediene-Thiery on her report on special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health. It is a very good report. Unfortunately, in two minutes all I can do is talk about some of its failings. Firstly the Commission has failed to deal with the issue of the 12 to 14 million third-country nationals living legally in the Union who currently suffer discrimination and, outside the Union's island States can move freely de facto but cannot do so legally, which of course creates situations in which they are exploited and used in illegal ways. With all due respect for the rapporteur, I have to say that we also have a problem with a number of areas that she has not dealt with, one of which is the issue of football hooliganism. I am generally in favour of free movement but I think it needs to be limited. I do not normally believe that persons who have not been convicted of crimes should be prevented from moving freely, but there is a European problem that is being ignored at European level. Europol should be used to prevent the free movement of people who have been convicted of football-related crimes to ensure that they do not cause the same kind of trouble as at previous World Cup and European championship tournaments. I also believe that the provisions should be invoked on the grounds of public security to prevent the free movement of German neo-Nazis who produce Holocaust denial material in Denmark with the clear intention of reimporting it into Germany, where it is illegal. I hope that the Danish Government will use the provisions in this instance. Equally, we need to make sure that the system is not abused. I naturally hope that the free movement of people who have the misfortune to be HIV-positive is not restricted in any way on grounds of public health. I agree with Mr Tannock in principle. Of course the royal families of Europe should be allowed to move about freely. However, I disagree with his priorities. When we ignore the rights of 12 to 14 million legal residents, then the rights of two families are comparatively insignificant.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, we have indeed all lost out as a result of the failure at Cancún. Paradoxically, the least-developed countries are set to suffer most, when they should have been the main beneficiaries of the Development Round. Economic growth at global level has also been negatively affected. This is not only because a reduction of duties and the elimination of other barriers to trade benefits economic growth by making trade exchanges easier. It is also because success at Cancún would have sent out a very positive signal, one that would have helped revitalise the global economy. There is also likely to be a negative impact on the multilateral trading system. I am convinced there is no need to deviate from the course followed to date. Nonetheless, it is imperative to overcome the stalemate the Development Round finds itself in following Cancún. Work on the basis of the agreements previously reached must resume at the earliest opportunity. As has already been stated, it is essential to undertake an in-depth study of the working procedures of the WTO and its organisational structure. The reasons for the failure at Cancún must be investigated too. Commissioner, I venture to suggest a further area for consideration by you, namely the need to reformulate the development of the potential of the least-developed countries. By this I mean more than the need to increase the budget allocation for the purpose, though that is certainly required also. What I have in mind is the need to establish how best to help weaker countries to improve their negotiating capacity, and how best to empower them to take decisions for themselves, and to do so in full awareness of the facts. This would also ensure they were not taken advantage of. Regrettably, this does seem to have been the case in the past. Madam President, I believe the outcome of this consideration and the ensuing decisions will determine whether Doha will indeed prove a turning point, even though the next stage of the journey will be longer than anticipated. It will also determine the future of the multilateral trading system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I want to add my voice to celebrate this historic agreement. You have already sent a letter conveying our best wishes to the Northern Ireland authorities. Could you send another letter to invite our Northern Ireland friends, the executive, to pay a visit to the Parliament. I feel that it is our duty to mention the role that one of our colleagues, Mr John Hume, has played in this process. He is in better shape after four operations and a long convalescence and I hope that he will be back among us very soon.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, today, we know a lot more about what happened in Eurostat than we did when the decision was taken to grant discharge for 2001. It is very possible that the decision would have been otherwise if we had known what we know today. There is no doubt that what took place that year were serious offences against the Financial Regulation: secret accounts, embezzlement and obvious conflicts of interest. Mr Casaca’s report is not bad. It is critical, but what is missing is a conclusion. We think it fair that the Commissioner responsible for Eurostat should have taken the political consequences and resigned. In many ways, this scandal resembles those that caused the Santer Commission to resign. A systematic and organised misuse of EU funds has taken place, and there has been a failure to intervene in time. Mr Solbes Mira says that he was not informed until April 2003, but we all know that there had been many warning signs before that date in auditors’ reports and in the press, as well as warnings by Parliament. When Mr Prodi began his term of office, he was very clear about political responsibility. The Commissioners were responsible for what happened within their Directorates-General. That proud watchword, issued at the beginning of the term of office, proved to have little substance when it came to the Eurostat affair. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I abstained in the vote on the request to refer back the Duhamel report, by way of protest. I am of course a fierce opponent of the extreme right here in Parliament. But I am deeply disturbed, Mr President, that it is possible here in this Chamber for a Member of the left – I have forgotten now who it was – to call elected Members of this House 'polluters' of this Chamber, without you calling that Member to order. We should not accept language like that, because it is exactly the kind of language used by the extreme right in power in my home country when I was not yet born or was just a small child. We should not accept this, whoever uses such language, whether it comes from the extreme right or the extreme left.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted in favour of the joint resolution tabled by the , which was in line with the social movement and against unbridled globalisation. Our resolution was rejected – but only just – in favour of a Liberal-Conservative text which goes against the demands of those people who demonstrated at Porto Alegre and Davos. Our European Parliament has once again confirmed that the majority of its Members are on the Right. We should not forget this when we come to prepare for the European elections of June 2004! - Resolution on generic drugs (B5-0103/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this debate on the excellent report by Mr Laschet and the conferral of the Sakharov prize on the United Nations Secretary-General shows the European Parliament’s ever clearer desire to reaffirm the unique and irreplaceable role of the UN in international relations, in line with the Millennium Declaration and the Commission Communication. Furthermore, the resolution that we are going to vote on in a short while also shows in a clear and detailed manner the direction that relations between the Union and the UN should take. A very large number of proposals, which I support, have been tabled, both as regards reinforcing the role of the European Union within a stronger United Nations through, for example, a seat on the Security Council, and as regards reinforcing cooperation between the Union institutions and the United Nations system. These are ambitious proposals for reform, since the European Union would eventually see itself as having the roles of secular arm of the UN or of the UN’s elder daughter, in the same way that a country that I know well was once spoken of as the Church’s elder daughter. It is even envisaged, in Article 17, that the European Union must play a pioneering role in defining UN policy. Excellent! In the background to these encouraging and dynamic projects, however, some issues remain, which are worrying while they remain unresolved, in particular the issue of the position and role of the UN’s most important member, the United States. What can the UN/European Union alliance do faced with the US’s unilateralism, its opposition to the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol and its desire to use, on its own and quite freely, its military force, as soon as it considers its security threatened? The UN and the European Union must, together, continue to make a huge effort to ensure that the UN really can exercise this credible multilateral international authority that the whole world really needs.

Political group: PSE
To impose a total ban on snuff in the EU, at the same time as cigarettes and other tobacco products are permitted throughout the Union, is illogical. The ban on snuff, which applies in all EU countries except for Sweden, ought therefore to be lifted. The advantage of snuff is that using it does not affect the environment. While smoking causes suffering and illnesses even among people who do not smoke, especially among people with allergies, it is only the snuff taker himself who is exposed to possible ill effects. Snuff is addictive. The tobacco industry should not, therefore, be allowed to market snuff as something healthy. The Marketing Directive, which will shortly be banning tobacco advertising within the EU, must be safeguarded and apply to all tobacco products.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on a point of order, I disagree with my friend and colleague, Mr Goebbels. We need to distinguish more between what is important and what is less important. We need to establish what needs debate because we disagree and because we need to explore further the issues involved, and what can be dealt with under a simplified procedure because we all agree. The procedure Mr Goebbels refers to allows us to do that. It needs only one political group to request a debate for that debate to take place. Frankly, if no group – not even Mr Goebbel's own group – has been persuaded that a debate is worth having, then clearly it can be left to the committee, which also meets in public. This will then enable plenary to spend more time on more important matters. That is surely something we should be doing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is good that greater attention is to be paid to animal welfare requirements in future by shortening transport times and improving transport conditions. It is far more important, however, that there should be a marked reduction in animal transports themselves. That really would be in the animals’ interests, and it would also make it more difficult for dangerous animal diseases to spread and reduce environmental pollution from carbon dioxide emissions. Most people think it is uncivilised to drive animals hundreds or even thousands of kilometres across Europe and the world for slaughter. They rightly demand that animals be transported to the nearest abattoirs and be marketed from there. It is after all much easier to deliver frozen meat to remote areas. Transports of slaughter animals should be limited to four hours. That is long enough to reach an abattoir from almost any farm anywhere in Europe. The report says the cross-border transport of animals is necessary because of the unequal distribution of resources and demand, owing to geographical and historical factors. I cannot support that view. EU subsidies have nevertheless been widely used to encourage concentration of abattoir capacities. The main reason is the policy of liberalisation and concentration, which is destroying regional trade patterns. So long as this policy is applied, everything that is to be done to protect animals during transport will be treating the symptoms and not the cause. What the report says about giving priority to slaughter close to place of rearing, financial support for local slaughterhouses or the use of mobile slaughterhouses will be impossible to achieve in a European Union of 25 Member States. The reality is different. The merger trend in the slaughtering industry is continuing. The distances over which animals are transported are growing. Monitoring animal transports from space by satellite positioning may be a very interesting technology, but it is just one method of surveillance, of which in my view we have too many. The effectiveness of all methods should be looked at again. This report ought to be promoting regional business cycles. That is why I can and must say that it needs to be completely revised to that effect.

Political group: GUE-NGL