GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The Commission is exasperating us with poorly thought out and inappropriate proposals in the field of indirect taxation, specifically with regard to excise duty. Today we are hearing its proposals for tobacco. We already know that the Commission is also cooking up a proposal to increase excise duties on alcohol and to abolish the zero rate for wine, which is also inappropriate and even counter-productive. Like us, the Economic and Social Committee rejected the Commission proposal, with an overwhelming majority because it is an inappropriate tool which, instead of narrowing the gap between excise rates applied in Member States, is in danger of further widening the gap. The supposed objective of achieving greater harmonisation would therefore, not be reached and the balanced compromise established under Luxembourg’s presidency in 1992 between the supporters of proportional taxation and those of a specific form of taxation would be seriously undermined. This compromise was based on a balance in the sacrifices to make for the sake of harmonisation, to facilitate the entry into force of the single market in 1993. The implementation of this misguided proposal by the European Commission runs the risk of encouraging massive smuggling in the EU’s southern Member States and, following enlargement, in central Europe. There would be an increase in the price of cigarettes of between 200% and 500%, a further illustration of this proposal’s lack of realism. Our rapporteur’s arguments, which I agree with, to reject the Commission proposal outright are convincing on more than one point. I quote: ·

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I asked for additional speaking time because I am aware that rapporteurs often do not have a chance to reply to particular points which could be cleared up during the debate. Mr Pronk and others have explained the taxation issue very well to those – within his own political group and elsewhere – who have concerns about it. This is an indication that there are issues which need to be looked at. As regards Amendment Nos 44 and 45, I would urge Mr Bushill-Matthews, amongst others, to look at Amendment Nos 51 and 52 and to see if he cannot at least support them. As regards one or two comments on Article 3 and the scope of the regulation, if they are references to the issues about refugees and stateless people, then they are already included in the current regulation. This is not an addition but a rewording, because the original proposal – which was a rather elegant, all-embracing one from the Commission – had to be changed because the issue of third-country nationals was dealt with some time ago in a separate proposal under the able rapporteurship of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. The issue of moving for family reasons is included not least because, as I indicated, it is a question that the advice services say comes up very frequently. It was also the subject of a significant case in the Committee on Petitions. A British woman who moved from the UK in order to follow her husband in his work as a member of the armed forces discovered that she fell between two stools in terms of her entitlement to unemployment benefit. If she had known how to work the system better in terms of nuancing it, she would not have been caught by resigning four days before moving. Therefore, that particular issue is there because it affects a large number of people. I would like to thank colleagues for a very focused and informed debate. I hope we manage to get a very positive vote from Parliament tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the report concerns the importance and dynamics of the theatre and the performing arts in an enlarged Europe. I have had another dream, Mr President: I dreamt I was watching a play in which the enlarged Europe was taking part. What did I see in this play? I saw yours truly having lunch in a restaurant in a place called Vercelli in Italy with Mr Mádl, whom we applauded just now, and the President of the Republic of Bulgaria, the former King Simeon II. We were savouring saffron risotto, mushroom risotto and black risotto with cuttlefish, as is appropriate in a place such as Vercelli where rice is grown. We were all thoroughly enjoying our meal, but the chef said to us: ‘Soon, you will no longer be able to enjoy rice if you Members of the European Parliament do not do something to help agriculture in the reform of the common agricultural policy that is currently being carried out in the European Parliament and the European Community, for the agricultural activities of rice-growing areas such as Vercelli, Novara, Pavia, Milan and other areas of Europe must be safeguarded too.’

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to speak in this debate in my capacity as the author of the report on the accession of Cyprus. Since both Turkey and Cyprus are candidates for membership of the European Union, it is increasingly clear that a solution to the Cypriot question is becoming a matter of internal policy. Commission Verheugen has confirmed that the Cyprus issue plays a very important part in the discussions currently being conducted with Turkey. Given the political and military presence of Turkey in the northern part of the island of Cyprus, this could not fail to be the case. Our rapporteur, Mr Morillon, deserves our congratulations for stipulating that a solution to the Cyprus problem must be one of the preconditions for Turkey’s accession. ‘It is hard to understand today,’ he writes, ‘how it can remain divided by a wall, while in many other places such walls have crumbled over the past decade.’ In order for this outdated wall to be brought down, it is now essential for Turkey to comply with the Security Council resolutions requiring it to withdraw its occupying forces from the northern part of the island. Paragraph 17 of our motion for a resolution explicitly calls for this. It is high time that Turkey listened to the Turkish Cypriots, the great majority of whom wish to overcome the divisions of the past and join Europe alongside the Greek citizens of Cyprus. If, on the other hand, Turkey continues to fuel the separatist, even annexationist impulses of the unofficial government of northern Cyprus, then it will be responsible for causing the proximity talks to fail. In the medium term, an attitude of this kind would be an insurmountable obstacle to Turkey’s accession. One of the three conditions stipulated in the Morillon report, a condition that the European Parliament will be adopting, would still remain unfulfilled. Once the Ankara Government has understood that the status quo is not acceptable to Europe or to the rest of the world, then considerable progress may be made: the island may be reunified, and a fair and lasting global settlement may be achieved tomorrow in compliance with international law.

Political group: PSE
We voted against this report, since, regrettably, proposals by the Group of the European People’s Party , the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and the Union for Europe of the Nations Group were approved that substantially amend the text approved by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. As a result of the proposals and votes of these groups, some extremely important elements were, consequently, left out of the final text: - the call for temporary measures to prevent a significant number of Member States, such as the United Kingdom, and new Member States, from being able to opt out, which defeats the purpose of the Directive; - the request that the Commission immediately begin action against the United Kingdom for non-compliance, in view of the widespread systematic abuse of the Directive referred to in the Commission’s communication; - the item stating that the Lisbon Agenda sets a target of a 60% employment rate among women by 2010, which will not be achieved if extended working hours continue to be allowed; Our proposals, on the other hand, were not approved, namely those advocating a gradual reduction in working hours and those that put forward alternative models of organising working time in the health care sector and in similar sectors that involve being ‘on call’ to protect workers’ rights as regards maximum working hours.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, by agreement with the rapporteur I would like to make an oral amendment. I only have the English text with me now. It should read: 'Insists on the immediate abolition of the death penalty...' instead of 'Reiterates its call for the immediate abolition of the death penalty...' (The President noted that there was no opposition to considering the oral amendment) On paragraph 10

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Group broadly welcomes this long-overdue overhaul of the original 1977 directive as part of the single market in financial services, which utilises the financial passport or single licence concept. This involves minimal harmonisation, the setting of professional standards and consumer safeguards as well as mutual recognition between Member States, to enable brokers to enjoy freedom of establishment throughout the Union with rules to ensure prudential care for the good conduct of their business. I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Berenguer Fuster, on his largely cooperative cross-party approach in committee, appropriate to a technical report which provides quality assurance to the consumer. It is worth noting that approximately 95% of European consumers use the services of insurance brokers and will be affected by this directive, along with 100 000 insurance practitioners in the Union. The vast majority of areas of political difference were resolved in a series of compromise amendments, as well as those requirements due to the peculiar structure of the German industry. I was delighted at the adoption of a large number of my own amendments, ranging from exemptions for the travel industry, to recognition of the role of the computer and the Internet and the future role of e-commerce for insurance, as well as safeguards for a three-yearly review of eligibility for registration, and protection for businesses located offshore outside the EU. I hope this report will not increase the burden to intermediaries, in terms of cost or difficulty, or of conducting normal business practices, but will open up a competitive and transparent market throughout the 15 Union Member States, which ultimately, by providing volume and economy of scale, will provide real savings which will be handed down to the citizens of the Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
The essential problem of developing countries with regard to energy – in contrast to the situation in more developed countries – is not the replacement of current production sources with other, less polluting ones. The essential problem is one of access to any sources of energy at all. Note that two thousand million citizens do not have access to electricity. So in order to achieve the dual objective of democratising access to electricity without worsening the greenhouse effect, it is fundamental that we should support the transfer of technology and the financing of environmentally beneficial projects. It is unacceptable that the European Union should send its most obsolete technology to developing countries. I welcome the efforts made by the European Union at Johannesburg for there to be binding targets for renewable energies, and the initiatives launched at that summit to get businesses involved. I believe the rapporteur has made an excellent contribution to this cooperative effort to share the best technologies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, naturally I agree with the principles expressed here by my fellow MEPs, but I would like to point out – and they probably know this – that your compatriot, Commissioner Vitorino, has already stated publicly, via a note, that there has been no infringement of the Schengen principle in these incidents, and furthermore the Minister for Foreign Affairs has already apologised to the people affected.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it was agreed in 1996 that the number of people suffering from malnutrition would be halved to 400 million by the year 2015. However, the fact is that the number of hungry people has remained the same over the past five years. It is very unfortunate that so few of our European leaders attended the ‘World Food Summit: five years later’ in Rome three weeks ago. It once again illustrates that only a few seem to want to narrow the gap between rich and poor in this world by way of priority, let alone meet basic needs, such as food and basic health care. The fact that Mr Prodi and Commissioner Nielsen were present in Rome proves that Europe can take the lead, and would also be prepared to do so if it were up to the Commission. However, a few changes will have to be made in that case. According to the head of the World Food Programme, Mr James Morris, 300 million malnourished children in the world can be fed at school for EUR 0.24 per child per day. At the moment, we spend in Europe EUR 2 daily per cow on subsidies. The chasm between rich and poor is not narrowed by means of extra funding or food aid to developing countries, but precisely by means of additional policy. We must take the subsidised cow by the horns. Without adequate reforms to the common agricultural policy now, the objectives of the World Food Summit will never be reached, and certainly not by 2015. Moreover, Commissioner Nielsen was right to state that, as an organisation, the FAO remains very inefficient. Commissioner Nielsen is right to demand only concrete, national, regional support and no general FAO fund contribution, and he was right to criticise the bad management, such as in Zimbabwe. By adequate agricultural policy, I specifically mean the shift of production subsidies towards rural development, but mainly also free and fair trade. We should call an end to the dumping of European products in developing countries. We should in Europe abandon the export subsidies for our own farmers and we must lower the trade barriers for developing countries to a minimum. I await with bated breath the EU’s new agricultural policy, on which the Commission will be taking a decision next week. As Commissioner Nielsen rightly said, that is where, in addition to national policy in the developing countries themselves, a large proportion of the solution to world hunger lies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must, no doubt, all concede that we were somewhat surprised by how very successful this year was. I am myself always sceptical when ‘European Years’ devoted to social policy objectives are declared, and, at the end of them one cannot actually point to anything having been achieved. Such was not the case with this one. This may be because this ‘Year’ was something special, above all in that it promised much, and because the idea for it was put to politicians by non-governmental organisations and associations of handicapped persons. There were discussions of a wide variety of topics, in which disabled people themselves discussed national and European approaches. Rather than having discussions about disabled people, we discussed things with them. In my own country, too, a debate has got under way, which has as its objective, not only legislative measures but also, of course, the raising of public awareness. We want unrestricted participation, no longer to be cared for outside society in the way we once were. We want full equality rather than the former demeaning sympathy, and, instead of being patronised by well-meaning people, we want the right to autonomy. For that, of course, we need legislative measures. I might add that we in this House agreed that this Year should not remain a one-off, a concern that the Commission’s new action plan takes up. I think the Commission is still being a bit too hesitant as regards the timescale, as we should make use of the present commitment, which is evident everywhere, rather than putting things off for another two or three years. I am also glad that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has managed to get a line inserted into the Budget, not merely for a survey, but for following up all the things that have gone well in this European Year. I would like to close with a very fine slogan that you, Commissioner, mentioned at a recent event, when you said that we should use ‘Getting on Board’ as a slogan. I would like to end with a slogan for the future, when disabled people will not just be ‘Getting on Board’ but also ‘Staying on Board’. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to thank my colleague, Mr Khanbhai, very much for his own-initiative report. As a member of Parliament's ACP delegation, I have been concerned with this issue for years. Sustainable agricultural policy, land reform and rural development are important political challenges with a view to the developing countries being entirely independent. Why, with our considerable financial aid, have we not been able to make a more decisive contribution to improving the situation in the poorest countries? I constantly ask myself what Europe is doing wrong. What are the rich countries doing wrong, but also what do the poor countries gain by stepping up their own efforts? I think that we will have to get much tougher on these issues because we can see – and have examples to prove it – that the world population is not prepared to put up with this injustice any longer. As European politicians working on agriculture, we know only too well that the European Community's common agricultural policy regularly comes in for harsh criticism for the impact that it has on agriculture in the poorest countries and this has again been the case this evening in a number of contributions to the debate. It is true, however, that the critics often think that the answer is too easy, because it is wrong to think that a greater opening up of trade will inevitably lead to better development of the food sector in the developing countries. Many have said it: the EU is already the largest importer of food in the world and against this background the agricultural problems in the vast majority of developing countries will not be resolved solely by more intensive trade and agricultural deregulation. It is actually wrong – and here too I am addressing Mrs Kinnock – to call for total liberalisation and an abandonment of national quotas in developing countries. This would lead to merciless distortions of competition, which small farmers would have absolutely no chance of withstanding. In conclusion, allow me to mention three facts: we need production for domestic consumption and for export on the basis of a reformed system of land tenure; we need better employment; we need sustainable management and we should consider new ways forward.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today I received a letter from the services department informing me that the question which I submitted to the Council will be answered alongside another question submitted by another colleague. However, the issues in question are completely different, because our question does not cover the general issue of nuclear power plants. Our question concerns a specific nuclear power plant which the Turkish Government wishes to establish in an earthquake-prone area and we are correlating this issue directly with that of the terrible earthquake which took place in Turkey. Should, in your opinion, two completely different issues be discussed together? The nuclear power plant which will be established in Morocco concerns the desalination of water. I do not know if Morocco’s problem can be likened to the one we are raising in our question as regards the station which is to be established in Turkey; that is, the problem of seismicity, particularly in view of the terrible earthquake in Turkey a few days ago.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Despite promising attempts, current fisheries policy still involves the EU buying the right to abuse the natural resources of the poor. It is a modern form of colonialism. A real reform of fisheries policy and a complete change in view of our relationship with poor countries are necessary. We have therefore chosen to vote against the above report.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there are now only fifty days remaining of the long journey that began with the scenes of joy on 9 November 1989 under the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. In fifty days, Europe will become a united continent, and almost half a billion people will join together to work towards a better and fairer world and to defend European values and together solve common problems: pollution, cross-border crime and, in particular, trafficking in human beings, which everyone has mentioned. EU enlargement is a fantastic example of what we can achieve when we have a clear goal and a clear strategy in the EU. With EU membership as a tempting goal, and hard work on their part, the former communist dictatorships have now become fully functioning democracies and market economies. Potential membership has also contributed to the work of reform in Turkey and to the possibility of perhaps finally solving the Cyprus problem. Naturally, there remain a great many problems, which Elmar Brok also pointed out in his excellent report. The EU will change dramatically in the next few years, and the main task during the next term of office will be to make this enlarged Europe work. It is therefore extremely important that the Convention’s proposal is actually carried out so that the EU can take decisions and function democratically. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is always particularly concerned about minority rights, which is why we are greatly worried by the unrest within the Roma group in Slovakia. The cuts in social benefits hit this group particularly hard, and we hope that the Commission can continue to monitor the Roma situation in both the old and the new Member States. Finally, I too regret that we are building walls between ourselves and the new Member States in the shape of various types of transitional rules. One country after another is now introducing more or less discriminatory regulations based on fears that seem completely unfounded and are eagerly encouraged by the press in certain countries. Instead of hindering freedom of movement, we should welcome the fact that it embraces more and more people. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
The Schengen system, in the guise of a gradual abolition of controls at the internal borders of the EU countries concerned, reinforces controls at the borders of the Union itself and makes conditions of access stricter. Whilst claiming to facilitate the movement of persons, Schengen makes it more difficult for all those who are not natives of the European Union. Our vote against this report is an expression of our opposition to both the spirit and the letter of the Schengen Convention. The enlargement of the European Union by the integration of certain Eastern European countries makes the Schengen Convention all the more shocking, as the Schengen borders put up additional barriers among national communities living in more than one country simultaneously. Finally, even the slight advantages of the Convention, that is to say, the end of controls at the internal borders of the Schengen area, are random, being subject to the discretion of States which are able to re-establish such controls.

Political group: GUE-NGL