GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, extending the present European sugar regime is the best solution for producers, consumers and developing countries. The Daul report makes a sound case for extending the EU sugar regime, a regime which, compared to other areas of policy, is very cheap for the European Union. Setting aside specific regional policy in certain parts of the European Union and the funds needed to import from a large number of ACS countries, the policy is actually financed entirely by the farmers themselves. It is therefore striking that the costs of this policy should form the subject of another dispute. The policy is said to be expensive and cost the consumers dearly. In fact, the first argument can be refuted on the basis of the agricultural budget, which demonstrates that expenditure on the policy is mainly earmarked for the measures with regard to ACP countries and regional policy, and not for the common organisation of the market itself. As for the second argument, one cannot compare apples and oranges, and that happens whenever a small proportion of the global market, mainly a surplus market, is compared with the consumer price in Europe. For example, when internal European cereal prices were brought into line with the global market, it appeared that the consumer in Europe did not in any way benefit from the lower producer prices. In terms of meat prices, too, we observe that consumers hardly notice a reduction in prices for many producers. It is therefore better to opt for a policy in which producers are given a valuable role in a tough competitive context, both in Europe and elsewhere, instead of a spurious position in the discussion between consumers and producers. But I expect that we will again be entering into this discussion during the mid-term review of European policy. With regard to the ability of 48 of the poorest countries to access the EU market, we should do better to opt for a kind of ACP formula, rather than state before the event that a policy will be wiped out completely with this measure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although there are certain positive aspects to Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel’s report, it is driven by the perception that the purpose of research is to serve corporate interests and produce new knowledge – mainly of commercial value – on demand, within the framework of the liberalisation of the market and of competition. Any research policy based on this sort of perception and which serves this sort of policy is bound to distort the nature of research as a procedure for producing new knowledge and as a productive power. What research basically needs is an increase in its funding, which is unacceptably low for the European Union as a whole (1.8% of GDP compared with 2.8% in the USA and 2.9% in Japan), while countries such as Greece, which is at the bottom of the EU league, spend a miserable 0.5%. Increased funding will allow new research activities to be developed and use to be made of the plethora of unemployed, highly-specialised young researchers, of which there is an abundance, at least in Greece. Funding must be provided by public agencies within the framework of research activity programmes which will support both basic research and applications, the final purpose of which should be to improve the quality of life for all mankind and not swell the coffers of the monopolies. International collaboration plays a primordial role in the research process, and its further development, both between the Member States of the EU and with other countries, would be both desirable and welcome. However, ensuring that overall research efforts in the countries of the EU serve the interests of big business, solely with a view to increasing their profits, is undesirable and constitutes a repulsive prospect for the future of mankind. This is why the MEPs of the ΚΚΕ shall be voting against Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel’s report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the trouble with this pass is that nobody knows about it! We make virtually no use of it at all. That is why I think you should remind the authorities once again that this pass is valid within the EU. Yesterday, Mrs Karamanou said that she wanted to travel to America on it, which is of course impossible. It clearly states in the pass that it is only valid within the European Union. But to prevent this sort of thing reoccurring, perhaps the German authorities, and also of the authorities in other countries, should be made aware of its validity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the agreements under discussion today are important and positive, as already pointed out by both the Commissioner and Mr Hernández Mollar, who has produced an excellent report on this matter on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. As has already been mentioned, this is the first time that extradition and legal cooperation agreements have been concluded between the European Union and a third country. Closer cooperation between the United States and the European Union is also to be welcomed, since this will make the fight against international crime more effective, as well as providing appropriate protection for our democratic societies, our common values and our citizens. I add my voice to those critical of the secrecy surrounding the negotiations, and of the Council’s attempt to classify the text of the agreements as confidential, thus excluding Parliament. This attitude is incomprehensible, since we are dealing with something which is going to have a direct impact on the fundamental rights of our citizens. Fortunately, the Council reconsidered this absurd and unacceptable classification. Overall, we support the two agreements before us, but there are certain aspects which it is essential to safeguard. Firstly, the treatment received by the United States in relation to the European arrest warrant must never be the same as the treatment given to Member States of the European Union, since the US is subject neither to Community law, nor to the Convention on Human Rights, nor even to European data protection legislation. Secondly, any request for execution of a European arrest warrant or for attendance at the International Criminal Court should take precedence over requests for extradition to the United States. Thirdly, there should be a guarantee that extradition to the United States cannot take place if the defendant could be sentenced to death, or tried in exceptional or military tribunals. Fourthly, there should be an explicit reference to Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as well as to the European Charter on Fundamental Rights. Fifthly, a demand for effective and proportionate data protection provisions, to guarantee, at the very least, the same level of protection as that provided by the Council of Europe Convention. I hope the necessary guarantees will be made in these areas when the agreements are signed at the European Union-United States Summit on 25 June.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, while the fully support the efforts of the Commission to create a sustainable fisheries policy within the EU, we reject any attempt to simply transfer our problems to the developing world. For far too long the EU has sent its distant water fishing vessels to scour the oceans off Africa and other areas where they can cause immense harm to fish stocks and to local artisanal fishing communities. We have to clean up our own house without transferring our problems to those who are economically worse off than ourselves and who are desperate for any money they can get. Commissioner Fischler has stated that the EU must work for sustainable fishing wherever EU fleets operate and we shall hold him to that goal. In relation to the over-capacity of EU fleets, I would like to ask the Commission how it feels about the announcement by the Irish Government yesterday for a EUR 56 million investment package for EU vessels? This conflicts quite strongly with what the Commission is trying to do. If the Irish Government is allowed to go ahead with this, how would it square with other Member States who could follow suit and do exactly the same? This is at complete odds with what the Commission is trying to achieve. Finally, in relation to the whole saga regarding Spain's involvement in recent weeks in the reform of the fisheries policy – and a Spanish minister actually admitting on television that he was ordering his commissioners what do to – this goes completely against the EU's rules. This entire saga needs to be properly and thoroughly investigated because, forgive the pun, as far as I can see, the whole thing is very fishy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner Lamy, you have heard here the concerns of my fellow Members and now I would simply like to make an observation. The age-old imbalance between Mediterranean crop production and crop production in the rest of Europe needed a different approach, whereas we are faced with the reform of Mediterranean crop production after the failure of Cancun and with a view to enlargement. Our concern is growing, with the fear that these two processes may exert further, unendurable pressure on our Mediterranean crops. Our concerns are, indeed, extremely serious regarding tobacco, even though everyone has to take on board the European Union’s principle of protecting health: these measures will cause extreme economic and social upheaval and result in foreign tobacco imports being increased to 100 %, so I certainly feel that greater caution would be in order. I would like to focus my remarks on one of the three crops that we are discussing because I feel that it is a case of enforced coupling. Each of these products is, indeed, special and deserved to be treated separately rather than them all being placed under the same umbrella. I am referring, in particular, to olive oil. Of course, there is a desire to reduce the requirement for support based on the amount produced. I would take the liberty of emphasising, however, that this condiment enhances food consumption across the world and, since it is a product which is good for health, there is increasing demand for it. I therefore feel that we have two major problems: guaranteeing a safety net for income and boosting quality policies. We will discuss these proposals after the legislative proposal. You quite rightly refer us to the decisions of the individual states, but we must also consider a number of general criteria such as employment. I put it to you: how can you reconcile the provision of incentives for the quality of this crop with the ongoing possibility of mixing olive oil with other fats? It is this possibility of mixing that causes a vertical drop in prices and is a blow to farmers.

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, when I listen to you both speaking on behalf of the Council and Commission, I should be reassured, but I am not, because we have been living, ever since Hiroshima, under the threat of an atomic war, and this threat is increasing rather than decreasing. We should stop paying lip service to non-proliferation and monitoring. Indeed, hypocrisy is quite clearly spreading in this case; after all, since the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the number of countries with nuclear material has risen continually. It appears that this has happened with the help of countries of our own Union which have never been punished and never been called to account. How did Israel manage to develop an atom bomb? First with the help of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany; everyone has helped create this bomb, and we are now complaining that Israel remains outside of the zone because, of course, the United States does not want to force that country to accept non-proliferation. As a result, the Arabs are also continually itching to get hold of nuclear weapons. We notice that all the monitoring that is in place was unable to prevent Mr Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, from doing his own thing, and getting away with it, for thirty years. Meanwhile, the material has increasingly become more readily available or available on the black market. Over the course of five years, one and a half kilos of fission material has disappeared from Georgia. The implosion of the Soviet Union has thrown open a market, a black market, in nuclear material. I hope that you will vote for enforceable measures and will take a stand against fine statements that send our people to sleep, because they are wide awake.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I shall not repeat what our fellow Members have already said, but I believe that all Members of Parliament would agree that overall, culturally appropriate solutions must be found for consumer health. We have a duty to take action. The problems will not, however, be solved by adopting puritanical positions and eliminating aid to producers. Ladies and gentlemen, the consumer and his health must be protected, but this must be achieved logically, by implementing coordinated policies rather than by eliminating the premium for producers. Reducing consumption will cause a decrease in production. Health problems will not be solved tomorrow by importing 100% of our tobacco. On behalf of tobacco producers I would urge the European Parliament, a responsible body, that an overall alternative be proposed to protect consumer health.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I must ask for an oral amendment to be made that has been negotiated and discussed with the political groups. Instead of having the quantitative targets found in two of the clauses, that is to say instead of writing 50% etc, we just want to write ‘significant reduction’. This is noted also in the voting list. The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment. Before the vote on Amendment No 64:

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to congratulate my colleague and fellow member of the Parliament's Anti-Racist Intergroup, Mrs Cerdeira Morterero, for her work on the important and difficult issue of family reunification. I have voted for this report and support it in line with my past work on immigration matters – particularly my work on secondary immigration issues like the 'primary purpose' marriage rule in the UK. It is important for Member States to authorise the entry of close relatives – parents, spouses or partners if there are no other means of support. The transposition of the directive should not lead to a lower level of protection than is currently provided by individual Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioners, I congratulate you on the speech you have just given. I will confine myself merely to asking Commissioner Liikanen a few questions. At the start of his speech, he drew our attention to the state of the European pharmaceutical industry, pointing out that it is less competitive than it once was and that, although it is one of the most important industries in Europe, it has now lost its pre-eminence to the United States. I would like, then, to make a short comment to the effect that the future of Europe – Europe’s destiny – is being determined today above all in its laboratories and research centres. That is why Commissioner Liikanen’s observation left me troubled, more troubled than I already was. So I would ask him this: might the legislative framework under development in Europe and the inflexible system of research regulations in the field of biotechnology, for example, not constitute a major obstacle to European industry’s acquiring or recovering competitiveness? I know that this is not what many of my fellow Members wish to hear, who, for philosophical or ideological reasons, are imposing a virtual veto on biotech development, but I felt obliged to put this question to you, Commissioner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too want to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, and his co-rapporteur, Mrs Maij-Weggen on their assiduous work on considerably improving this regulation, increasing transparency and facilitating people’s access to the institutions’ documents. The result of the review carried out in 2001 is encouraging. Clear progress has been made, and the trend is towards a more open attitude which will hopefully also lead to people making better use of their rights. Mr Cashman’s report clearly shows, however, that there is still a very great deal to be done and that there are still serious deficiencies. One such serious deficiency is that, when electronic systems are created, this is in the form of more than one system instead of a uniform system. I am grateful that Commissioner de Palacio emphasised this, together with the fact that a uniform and coordinated electronic case handling system is needed, whereby cases might be monitored throughout the whole process. Otherwise, it will be impossible for people to acquaint themselves with such a process. The Council seems, however, consistently to interpret Article 4 of the Regulation too restrictively, that is to say where general security is concerned. Something must be done about this as soon as possible. In Amendment No 2, we have proposed a change to paragraph 4 in order genuinely to bring this about. Paragraph 16, which talks about a harmonisation of the legislation on open government in the Member States’ administrations, worries me a little. I do not believe that we would in that way obtain increased openness and greater access to documents. I propose, instead, that you vote in favour of Amendment No 3 by the Group of the .

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the Commission has undertaken a courageous initiative and I would like to express my support for the excellent Vidal-Quadras report on the need to deal transparently with the problems raised by the historical liabilities resulting from nuclear research carried out at the Joint Research Centre – the need to decommission obsolete installations and manage radioactive waste. I would stress certain points which have been already been touched upon several times, starting with the premise that essential health and environmental obligations must always take precedence over economic objectives, although these cannot be disregarded. It must be recognised that, for some time, the comparison between the cost of the different sources of energy has been distorted by underestimation of the cost of decommissioning the installations and waste management. Therefore, the cost of decommissioning nuclear installations must not be taken solely from European Union resources but must also be the responsibility of the Member States which are involved in the construction of installations. In terms of the budget, the cost must not be taken from the research heading but a separate line should be created, as has been suggested. Europe must use this undertaking to gain fresh experience which will allow it to tackle the extremely serious issues regarding the ex-Soviet Union and the countries of the East which are candidates for enlargement. These territories contain many nuclear power stations which will have to be closed or decommissioned in forthcoming years. We must avoid the repetition of tragedies such as Chernobyl, the consequences of which have still not all become manifest, particularly with a view to the future lives of the communities affected by that disaster.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there seem to be many issues which this summit should address on its agenda, and one that I would like to see there is follow-up to the disappointing breakdown of the climate change talks in The Hague and how to get the US to take its responsibilities more seriously. But the area that I want to focus on is world trade, the whole idea of a new trade round one year after Seattle. This would seem an opportune time to take stock. I think it is clear that before any new round is considered we need to address the perception of many developing countries that nothing has changed since Seattle in spite of the many promises that were made at the time. I know the Commission is now talking about reviving elements of its position for a new round, making it more flexible, and I look forward to knowing what that really means in practice. I also know and welcome the Everything but Arms Initiative and would urge the Commission to use the occasion of the summit to press the US again to join in with this initiative. But we need to go further in building confidence with poorer countries. Research from the development agency OXFAM has shown that when they have discussed what has changed since Seattle with the developing country delegations, the perceptions are that nothing has changed at all. Bangladesh, for example, says and I quote: 'Sufficient and sustained efforts have not been made by the developed countries to build our confidence in the WTO.” Lesotho has said: 'What has the WTO market liberalisation brought to Lesotho?' There are very many quotes that I hear from developing country delegations, all of which are saying that nothing much has happened. I will conclude with the Dominican Republic, which says: 'The WTO was supposed to have been an impartial referee of common rules where countries could learn to play the game. It has not turned out that way. The rules are biased against the weak and nothing has changed since Seattle.' The forthcoming summit is the crucial opportunity to address those issues, to change the rules, and to make world trade work for the poor.

Political group: Verts-ALE