GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we are well aware that the reasons why the three Member States held a meeting before the Ghent European Council were not technical. They know that Europe has a weak foreign and security policy, and at least two of these Member States believe that this is to be welcomed. And even if you cannot say it here and now, you also know full well that exactly the same disputes between those who are in favour of a political union and those who are against it, are raging over the Convention. I know that there is no definitive decision, but we understand what is being said. The lessons learnt at Nice are likely to be of no value since the Council is being forced to choose from limited options without being able to come to an agreement on a strong proposal, on who will be part of the leadership, which makes a mockery of the parliamentary dimension and strengthens the intergovernmental dimension, or on a long period between the end of the Convention and the IGC. Unless we change our method, we are going nowhere. If the Convention is reduced to nothing more than a ‘talk show’ or a pre-IGC, 2004 is going to be a complete failure. It is your responsibility to deal with these disputes, so that we can break with the past. I hope that the European Parliament and the Commission will be supporting you and I also hope that you can appreciate the importance of such an alliance.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in Denmark, Pernille Frahm and her party have led the way in the struggle against what they call “more Union”. They campaigned against Denmark’s joining the single currency, which we are to vote on in September, and they have been on the “no” side in four out of the five previous Danish referenda. That is why I am so pleased to read Pernille Frahm’s report in which she does not merely approve, but also requests, “more Union” in the form of mutual aid in connection with the burden which the influx of refugees imposes upon us. To cap it all, she wants more money transferred from the national Refugee Councils to their EU equivalent. I agree. If a large number of Albanian refugees arrives in Italy or a large number of Baltic refugees in Scandinavia, it is more sensible to spread the cost over the whole Union than compulsorily to distribute the refugees throughout the Union. The Refugee Fund makes it possible to help more refugees in the vicinity of their own countries where they can maintain links with their families and native cultures and continue to put pressure upon the tyrants who drove them from their homes. It is, therefore, also a good thing that the EU should be able to come up with aid in support of large influxes of refugees. We saw the need during the war in Kosovo. Just imagine if a great many more Kosovars could have been helped in neighbouring Macedonia and Albania. They would have much preferred this than to have been sent thousands of kilometres away to distant countries. If there are any who stand united on this issue, they are Pernille Frahm’s and my own party. If we could make Pernille Frahm rapporteur for European cooperation, too, then I am sure that we could agree about that issue as well.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to say thank you to the rapporteur for his tireless enthusiasm for European development and for his splendid and very detailed report. I would nonetheless draw attention to two points about which I disagree. The first point concerns the procedure for revising the treaties. I completely agree that, against the background of the work in the Convention, it is clear that, in the future, we must use the Convention method for treaty amendments. That is something we have in any case learned from this process. I must nonetheless declare myself to be in complete disagreement with the rapporteur’s proposal with regard to changing the ratification procedure itself. I do not believe that it would be in keeping with the prevailing spirit of our Community if we were to take control of the EU’s development away from the Member States. I am in actual fact afraid that such a procedure would in itself stand in the way of development in this Europe of ours because people back home would be very sceptical about giving Europe more competences if, for example, they were not to feel that they were in control of what was going on. I think, therefore, that we have to recognise that Europe is founded upon its citizens and nations but that the sustaining, constituent units of our Union are the Member States and that this must naturally be reflected in our ratification procedure. We ought quite simply to stick to the procedure we have at present. The second point concerns the place of the social dialogue in the Community. The rapporteur is trying to have a procedure of approval by the Council and the European Parliament introduced whenever the two sides of industry have arrived at a proposal. I believe that such a procedure would give rise to an irrelevant third party in the social dialogue. The idea of the social dialogue is, of course, precisely that the two sides of industry should enter into binding agreements with each other and that there should be no irrelevant parties – in this case, legislators – involved in such agreements. If we are serious about beginning a social dialogue and perhaps, in time, creating proper European agreements, we must recognise that it is the two sides of industry themselves which must negotiate and that the legislators must stay outside the process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I regret having to address something that is an internal group matter, but, on Tuesday, our group agreed with the rapporteur that this item 8 would be amended, as it is drafted in a misleading way. The fact that this was not done obliged a number of Members, including Mrs Pack and myself, to vote against this report on the grounds that its infelicitous drafting gave the impression that the Western Balkans, Belarus, the Ukraine and Moldavia were among the neighbouring regions of Europe rather than of the European Union. There is no doubt, though, that these states form part of Europe, and, self-evidently, the Western Balkans also have the prospect of accession – indeed, ever since Thessaloniki, the right of accession, too – as soon as these states fulfil the European Union’s criteria. I therefore object to the way in which this form of words puts the Western Balkans on the same level as West Africa and the Southern Caucasus. That is quite nonsensical. I do assume, however, that the expression ‘Western Balkans’ does not mean Croatia, as this House, on the basis of an amendment that I jointly got introduced into another report by Mr Brok, decided as long ago as 9 April this year that it regards Croatia as a candidate for accession in 2007.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, in 2003, the Commission’s work programme, and even the political work of the entire Union, will be heavily dependent on the world economic environment. For now, there is no reason to be optimistic. According to the Commission, the indicators continue to point to an acceleration in growth at the end of 2002. This acceleration, however, will not exceed 1%, which means, and I quote, that a rate of growth of around 3% therefore seems impossible to achieve for 2003. The risk of a stock market crash, the impact of terrorism and the threat of war have significantly marked the world economy. We could adopt a dogmatic stance in response to this situation, superstitiously chanting ‘stability, stability’. We could also aim for a more pragmatic economic policy by giving growth a boost. That is what the US Government has done, injecting more than USD 100 billion into the economy in one year. That is what the Federal Reserve has done through its policy of lowering interest rates. For us, as s, stability is important. We must fight against public debt and for a balanced budget. The right has attacked the German Government for this, pretending to forget that right-wing governments in Portugal, Italy and in particular France, are moving ever further from the stability policy. The s, however, advocate a proactive policy in favour of growth and employment, because in politics chanting has never produced results. Now is the time to relaunch trans-European networks and use all available appropriations to foster productive investment, research and the knowledge-based economy. It is truly scandalous to see that the Commission was incapable of using all the available appropriations in 2001. Even though the Union budget is just 1% of the Community gross domestic product, 16% of these scant appropriations were unused, in other words, saved. Mr President, I shall end by saying that the Union set itself an ambitious strategy at the Lisbon Summit, and we must provide ourselves with the means to fulfil that ambition.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, let me start by saying that I sleep particularly well in Brussels – I am not sure why that is. I want to speak, though, as a member of the delegation for relations between the European Union and Switzerland, and we have a problem with night flight restrictions and Zürich airport. What is your view on the way in which flights between southern Germany and Zürich have developed, and how will the legal situation evolve in years to come? The fact is there are numerous complaints, meaning on the one hand that aeroplanes are not supposed to approach over Zürich, while the Germans do not want them either. As a result, at the moment there is a ban on approach routes over southern Germany, which in turn has led to an increased number of flight approaches over the city of Zürich. I would therefore be interested to hear how the European Union, and in particular the Commission, expects this problem to develop in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am delivering an opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the Böge report, and this gives me a further opportunity to speak about the transfer of direct payments. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development welcomes the Commission proposal that there should now be some phasing-in of direct payments, but it also believes that this must not be allowed to stand in the way of a restructuring of aids in the upcoming reform. We do not believe it will, however, because the 35% given leave room for manoeuvre. The report speaks of reaching 100% by 2013, but it does not say what reaching 100% in 2013 means. If the last reform had had the 45% modulation in the upper range that was once mooted, we would now have a difference of 35% to 55%. That would not be so great. We are therefore looking to the Commission to make proposals towards reform in the near future, which, as Mr Cohn-Bendit has said, will make enlargement both possible and stable. We also believe the proposal to make direct payments to semi-subsistence farmers is a sensible one, but we suggest this be raised from EUR 750 to EUR 1 500. That would entitle 5-6 ha holdings to the full compensation payment. In Poland that would be approximately 50% of holdings. So it includes the phasing-in, the social component. We can see there is room for manoeuvre here. Something we particularly welcome and call for is greater investment in the second pillar when money is reallocated. That is money that is needed first and foremost in the candidate countries. It is palpably obvious that rural areas there need development. Commissioner Fischler, I am referring here once again – as I think Mr Görlach has already done – to the 'bottom-up' approach and to our Sapard programme in Leader form, where the Commission has so far stubbornly refused to underpin this with legislation. We say it is urgently necessary that civil forces in the candidate countries should also be involved in the work of these projects so that people will feel happier about the European Union and we can lean back rather more contentedly and calmly when they come to vote on it. So I urge you once again, Commissioner Fischler, to get your bureaucracy moving. There are precedents. You only need to follow them. And we are always ready to help you.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mrs Smet is right to draw attention to the vulnerable position of domestic helpers in the black economy. She is calling for a European definition of “domestic work” to be drafted and for Member States to draw up and regularly update statistics on undeclared work. She wants this type of work to be recognised as an occupation in its own right and is calling for European rules to be established on the rights of these workers – at present the situation varies from country to country. The needs of domestic workers should be considered when employment legislation is being drafted. The need for all Member States to introduce the principle of declaring all employment relationships is stressed and both employers and employees should be made aware of their rights under their employment relationship. Finally, she wants Member States to link the issuing of visas for domestic employees working for diplomats to be linked to a guaranteed minimum level of working conditions. This report merits careful consideration.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would also like to offer the rapporteurs my heartfelt thanks and with regard to social policy I would say that a number of problems do still remain. I am pleased that Mr Mulder’s programme for small and medium-sized businesses in Central and Eastern Europe can also be used for health and safety. I hope that he will confirm this, because otherwise the value of the programme is less than I had thought. I believe that fortunately this is not the case. So much for my first point. My second point is that of the celebrated 500 million. I have EUR 10 here in my hand and perhaps I can give them to the Group of the . Then they can offer them to the Conference in Madrid, they are just as much a pittance as the 200 million that they are willing to give at the moment. It is of course very bad that we say to a country that is in such difficulty, a country that in theory could be one of the richest countries in the world and that perhaps one day will be again, that we say to it: ‘No, we can give you 200 million,’ – although money is always given back by the European Commission at the end of the year – ‘More is out of the question and anyone who asks for more is behaving irresponsibly.’ Then it seems we are concerned with bookkeeping and not really with the resolution of problems. Sure enough, we can also put up EUR 10, then we are being even more responsible and then perhaps everything will be fine. However, I believe that we are then failing in our duty, that we are then acting as bookkeepers and not as politicians. However, we are meeting here in this Chamber as politicians and therefore we must also talk about the actual problems. It may of course be that there is some other reason, but we must be prepared to reveal what it is. I would very much like to hear what it is.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in discussing this resolution we should be aware that Congo is larger than Europe. A country containing some 300 tribes, some of which live in total isolation, as the communications network is virtually non-existent. A country where both production and supply are achievable only with great difficulty. A country that is, moreover, wedged between Rwanda and Uganda. Rwanda, which meanwhile for its own security has moved its borders up to between 200 and 300 km into the Congolese interior. Uganda, which under the guise of combating rebel movements extended its influence to significant parts of Congo, up to and including Kisangani. The neutral position, which puts the Lusaka agreements first, involving the withdrawal of foreign troops and the establishment of partition areas both on the borders with Rwanda and Uganda and between the migrants themselves, is a passive first step that may lead to the stabilisation of the front and the belated return of the many refugees. Perhaps it will be useful if Europe, in contrast to the hesitant attitude of American policy towards Kabila, plays a key role. After all, Europe has an unbelievable potential impact because of its knowledge of the thinking behind events in Congo and can once more play a role to the benefit of the population, helping it do battle with desperate poverty, squalid health condition, starvation and epidemic disease. For example, without taking sides, Europe could support Belgian efforts to bring some stability to a population of over 55 million men and women in a land area larger than that of the enlarged Europe. In this way Europe would prove that it wants to respond to the priorities that the new President set out in his inaugural address. Europe must not remain passive in the face of developments in Central Africa.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, extending the multi-annual guidance programmes by one year to keep them in force pending the decision on future fleet policy after 2002 is sensible and I think it has everyone’s support in principle. The MAGP’s objectives are correct, but their implementation by the Member States still leaves much to be desired. The Commission’s reports in the past have shown us that over and over again. We have repeatedly criticised the failings in implementation and it is clear that the future fleet policy will have to remedy the situation. That is why the Commission wants to make changes to the MAGP and FIFG provisions as well as extending them by a year. I am opposed to some of those changes because I think these matters would be better resolved in the landmark decision about fleet policy. In my opinion there is no point in making extensive changes in the last year of MAGP IV’s validity, especially when they could have negative repercussions for safety on board fishing vessels. But if Member States are to continue to be able to apply for increases in capacity for measures designed to improve on-board safety and fishery product hygiene and these are to be paid for out of FIFG resources, something really must be done to ensure that those measures do not result in increased fishing. This condition is absolutely essential. We cannot have a situation where investments in on-board safety are prevented because the conditions for the application of the measures are not complied with or because many Member States are sometimes unable to ensure that they are or fail to do so. We ought to be using the debate about common fisheries policy reform to find solutions to the dilemma between on-board safety and careful management of stocks that has again been made clear by this report. No way must the one be at the expense of the other. IN THE CHAIR: INGO FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, given the conflicting viewpoints on the therapeutic cloning of humans, we can imagine that a great deal of restraint will be needed when applying this new technique. Commercial and industrial cloning, or cloning in order to create people with certain characteristics is unacceptable in everyone’s book, and rightly so. Nevertheless, we are today dealing with two conflicting points of view. Within the Group, it has been up to the conscience of the individual members as to how they wish to vote. In my opinion, the difference between the views of the and the on the one hand and the Social Democrats and Liberals on the other hand is that the former emphasise the penal implications for the medical profession, whilst the latter focus on the need for further research into the effects. I myself endorse the latter. A solution needs to be found for people who need a new heart, a new kidney or liver, as well as for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease. This too is a question of ethics. My party, the Party in the Netherlands, exercises utmost reserve with regard to cloning and genetic manipulation. From this perspective, I have been able to support the alternative put forward by the Social Democrats and Liberals rather than that put forward by the which goes for all-out rejection. Moreover, it appears as though it will be possible, within the next couple of years, to use the recipients own brain stem cells to grow organs which are not rejected by their bodies. I very much prefer this technique over and above the circuitous route developed in Great Britain, which is based on the reproductive technique.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, like very many members of the Group, I too voted against this document, not only because its contents do not fully reflect our ideas on abortion and the sexual problems affecting European citizens’ health but also because in this way I mean to stress the fact that, although I agree that we should talk about this important topic, I really wish we could talk just as often about the health of the elderly, the lives of pensioners and also – why not – what happens as regards relations between the sexes among the elderly. I wish this were discussed more in this Parliament. Imagine, Mr President, if there were 200 Pensioners’ Party representatives here: it would certainly be discussed much more!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Prodi, the White Paper calls on Parliament to enhance its role in feeding the views of its electors into the political debate. But this means, Mr Prodi, and I must stress this point, that in the twenty-first century democracy will continue to be associated with the word ‘parliamentary’ and not with the word ‘consultative’. (Applause) We do not want to go back to the pre-parliamentary democracy era and the White Paper should not be associated with that idea. Framework legislation and the use of other regulatory mechanisms can only be something positive if they are linked with appropriate guarantees. In the case of framework legislation the effect of these guarantees should be to ensure that the power to define is not handed over to some agency or other, but is reserved to Parliament. It is not only Parliament's privilege to insist on this, it is Parliament's duty. You say that you want more transparency and consultation, but whom are you excluding and whom are you including? Associations and non-governmental organisations that can pay for expertise will be better off than those who do not have these resources. And in practice some people will surely be better able to make their voice heard than others. Will this not mean that we are making the playing field for the various parts of civil society in the European Union still more uneven? I believe in a level playing field for the various actors and institutions. I believe that the White Paper is not clear enough about this. I call on you to make this clear, because I have to say that when it comes to financial market legislation, the implementation of the Commission's financial action plan tends to give one co-legislator a stronger position than the other co-legislator, the European Parliament. That does not seem a very promising road to go down. This imbalance needs to be rectified, and at the next intergovernmental conference Article 202 of course needs to be amended by creating a call-back right. However, the Commission could also demonstrate its good will at this stage and make it clear that it does not intend to surreptitiously change the balance between the institutions. We, as a parliament, owe that much to society, because parliamentary activity does not just mean controlling things, but also shaping them. I do not want to leave that task to a variety of committees chaired by people without any democratic legitimacy and who are not co-elected by Parliament, as is the case in the United States for example. (Applause)

Political group: PSE