GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I would like to express my disappointment and dismay at the ’s vote on the resolution on the World Conference Against Racism. Yesterday the spokesman approached the Socialist Group to ask us to withdraw my Amendment No 1 because, if it were accepted, they would be unable to support the report. After much soul-searching in the Socialist Group we decided that we would withdraw that amendment in the interests of getting the largest majority possible in Parliament against the forces of racism, the extreme right and anti-Semitism. I have to say I do not know what conclusion to draw because it is clear from the vote that, in fact, after making that promise the vast majority of the PPE actually voted against the resolution. It is not clear whether they were lying or whether they were confused. I am not sure which is worse. What is clear is that some of those weeping crocodile tears yesterday for anti-Semitic attacks in Italy in order to get cheap publicity, today voted in a way that could only give aid and assistance to the racists, the anti-Semites and the extreme right in the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, after a fight lasting many years, we are now to take the crucial decision on reception facilities which will make it possible, for example, to leave waste oil in port instead of dumping it in the sea. This is obviously an extraordinarily large step in the right direction. At the same time, it is worrying that, right up to the end, there have been those who have tried to thwart what is obviously the right step. This is shown by the fact that a third reading has been required and that a conciliation committee has had to be set up, as well as by the lack of commitment on the part of large sections of the Council of Ministers. It also has to be said that what we have achieved today is a compromise. In the original proposal, almost all portions of the costs were covered by port fees in accordance with the system which has been in existence for a long time in parts of the Baltic. This means that there was an economic motive for a vessel to leave waste oil in a port rather than dump it in the sea. Now, only portions of the cost are to be covered in this way, while an extraordinarily large part of the cost is to become a further additional cost for the ship owner. In my view, it remains to be seen what effects this will have. I believe it is very important that we should be prepared to keep track of developments and make further decisions on this, if need be. The evaluation envisaged in the Conciliation Committee’s proposal and the monitoring of vessels which is to take place are therefore extraordinarily advantageous.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the Basque Country and in Spain people like myself are accompanied by escorts. People like myself are murdered by people who demonstrate alongside Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso in the streets, who shout at us and who shout ‘ETA, kill them’. What he has said puts me in danger. People like him live comfortably in the Basque Country and I want them to carry on living comfortably, but what he has said puts my life and the lives of many people like me in danger. What I want this House to understand, please, is that all we Spanish constitutionalists want is to be as free as Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso and to be as sure as him that we are going to get home at night to see our children. We want to have his same liberty, his same security, but we do not have it, Mr President. It is unacceptable that he should use this democratic House to threaten us with death, since that is what I feel he is doing, Mr President. He and his accomplices know what I am talking about. It is indecent to have to hear in this House the words of a person who demonstrates in the streets alongside torturers and murderers. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation. The President of the WTO has now come up, of course, with a proposal to cancel the peace agreement in the agricultural sphere. I know that this is not part of the mandate, but I nonetheless think it worth reflecting upon now that we are interested in obtaining equal trading conditions in this area too. We do in fact use the United States’s protectionists in the agricultural sphere to excuse our own protectionism. Why not instead do away with both forms of protectionism and enter into proper trading arrangements with the developing countries? The second point is workers’ rights. How do we ensure that countries entering into agreements at the WTO observe, as a minimum, their own laws and rules governing workers’ rights, wages etc. I am thinking, for example, of Thailand where refugees from Burma work in prison-like conditions for virtually no money and where the trade goes directly to Europe. It is on our shelves that products from these prison camps are found. How are we to get this issue into the WTO negotiations?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party supports Mr García-Margallo y Marfil’s report. We believe it rightly emphasises the importance of providing a more appropriate framework to ensure that the objectives set in the various stability pacts and the main broad guidelines of economic policy are attained. The stability and credibility of the Union’s economy and its single currency are at stake. Over the last few days we have become very much aware of social unrest resulting from essential proposals to reform pensions systems. Reform is needed to guarantee pensions and associated benefits. These are integral parts of the welfare state system characteristic of the European Union. The Union provides and guarantees the best social protection and the greatest social balance when compared to other large economies. If it is to preserve that balance, the European Union must make a more determined effort to take the action many have called for in recent times. During the preparations for the Spring European Council in Brussels under the current Greek Presidency, we highlighted two shortcomings. The first was failure to attain the Lisbon objectives. The second concerned the need to tackle a number of outstanding structural reforms mentioned in Mr García-Margallo y Marfil’s report. Action on these is certainly needed. I should like to reiterate the importance of this area. It encompasses a number of unresolved key issues which are therefore still holding back economies and their development at European level. Liberalisation of some sectors is one area where action is outstanding. Another is failure to adopt technological innovation. Research and development is not being promoted adequately either. Further, as Mr García-Margallo y Marfil pointed out, it has now become urgent to give priority to SMEs, especially to those with the most potential for growth and innovation. It is well known that large corporations tend to shed jobs when times are hard. This is happening at the moment. It is actually the SMEs that create more employment and stimulate economic recovery. I would emphasise once again that such recovery must take place within a strict framework and budgetary balance. It is also essential to attain the objectives set in the stability pacts. These are an integral part of the framework on which the European Union and the euro are based and from which they will develop. We cannot afford to restrict or weaken it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am speaking briefly to justify my abstention. I am naturally in agreement with the main points in the text voted on, covering the institutions, the follow-up to the Lisbon European Council and aspects of fiscal policy and certainly food safety problems. But, given the circumstances, I could not vote in favour of paragraph 8 on Austria. I think the President-in-Office of the Council clarified matters greatly as to the method followed by the Fourteen, specifically asking Parliament not to consider voting to allow the contacts currently taking place between the foreign affairs ministers to achieve a result. I am astonished at this and I agree with what Mr Dell’Alba said, about the low regard in which Parliament holds the concept of parliamentary debate, because if it had been possible for the groups to discuss the matter and adopt a position – and there reform was important – after the speech by the President of the Council, I am certain that the vote would not have been the one we have recorded. That is why I felt I had to abstain.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the process of the accession of ten new Member States is now nearing completion. We are excited about it and would like to congratulate the Commission and the Council on this. It fulfils the fondest wish of the vast majority of European citizens, as it was, in the past, far from self-evident that this wish would be fulfilled. Unfortunately, many have already forgotten this. Enlargement became to them a question of money and some politicians speculated on fear, self-interest and other negative traits which they believed to be widely present at grassroots level. They knew very well that it is our security and prosperity that will benefit from enlargement. To my chagrin, the Dutch parliament, in particular, has been guilty of this type of behaviour, even as recently as this week. Since the Dutch Government was sensible enough to take the right decisions, a majority in the Chamber suddenly extended an invitation to the government right at the end to examine the options of a referendum on accession after all, although the formula is such that the government has still been given time to respond negatively. Domestic opportunism has prevailed over clarity and responsible policy in this case. Could the Council and the Commission, for their part, comment on the options and advisability of referendums on enlargement in the current Member States? Also, could you indicate the principal difference between referendums in the current Member States and those in the states that are candidates for membership? What would be the effect of a negative outcome of a referendum in a Member State or in one or more candidate countries, respectively? I should like to receive a response to this from the Council and, if possible, from the Commission, because this is, of course, of major importance for the purpose of publicity and information provided to the Dutch people. Finally, a word on Chechnya. The group chairman has already commented on this, and rightly so. This is a fight against terrorism, but we could employ diplomatic means to find a solution. I would also ask the Council whether the EU has a policy on Chechnya.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. We now have before us the Council’s common position on amending the directives containing basic rules for the performance of official inspections of feed and concerning animal nutrition. Mrs Paulsen has at the end again made the reason for this clear. The crises and scandals of recent years have made a revision of the rules concerning feed an urgent necessity. Amending the directive will harmonise the conduct of official feed inspections in Europe and enshrine them in law. Member States will now be obliged to introduce appropriate emergency measures to deal with serious risks involving feed. The Commission is empowered to adopt temporary precautionary measures if animal nutrition products manufactured in the EU present a serious risk to humans, animals or the environment. Member States are obliged to inform the Commission immediately and in full of any case of contamination. This will ensure that the Commission is able to act at once. Member States must also prepare an annual report of all incidents and irregularities involving feed and forward it to the Commission. The Council has accepted the European Parliament’s core demands for comprehensive feed inspections, namely the use of a generic term covering all products intended for use in the food and feed chain down to the final consumer. These were included in the common position. This took account of the intensive debate in the European Parliament. At this point I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Paulsen, sincerely for her handling of this difficult task. However, the Council was unable to comply with Parliament’s call for the directive also to be extended to changes that occur as a result of faults and flaws in the manufacturing process. Mrs Paulsen has just referred to this. For that reason, the rapporteur has retabled the corresponding amendments from the first reading in the slightly modified form required, as she has described. The report was accepted unanimously by the Committee on the Environment Public Health and Consumer Policy. The adjustments made to the tabled amendments were necessary in order to bring them closer to the corresponding articles of Directive 1999/29/EC on undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition. They were also brought into line with the corresponding article of the TSE Regulation on Community inspections. Acceptance of the amendments would create a uniform, clear and transparent inspection system tailored to the new requirements of the time.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to thank the Commissioner for his response. I would, however, like to add something. One of the main challenges in the enlargement process will be to tailor the veterinary and plant-health conditions prevalent in the acceding countries to those in the European Union. Would the Commissioner be prepared to encourage observers from the Central and Eastern European countries that wish to join the EU, to attend management committees, scientific committees or any other committees concerned with veterinary and plant health, on a permanent basis?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, if the changes to the Treaty proposed in the resolution we are debating are implemented, the European Union will take an absolutely crucial step on the way to becoming a federal state and one, moreover, in which the national parliaments will lose control over almost all crucial areas of policy. In addition to the massive increase in supranational forms of decision-making, the proposal contains quite a few qualitative changes in the direction of federalism, among these the proposal to remove the national right of veto in the course of changes to large parts of the current Treaty and, also, the demands for a single EU constituency in the elections for the European Parliament. I am convinced that this transformation of the EU into a federal state is a blind alley in every way. The EU’s major problem today is not a lack of centralised power but a shortage of real democracy. What the Union needs in place of more supranationalism is democratic reform leading to a dramatic reduction in the Commission’s political power, to the legislative process in the Council’s being made public and to the national parliaments’ being given decisive influence. Through the Treaty changes proposed in the resolution, the EU would become a Union wholly dominated by the big Member States. The power wielded by the major countries would be increased dramatically through the introduction of a system of “double simple majority” voting in the Council of Ministers. Their power would also be increased through the increase in their representation in the European Parliament. In an EU which has been enlarged by a further twelve States and in which seven hundred seats in Parliament have been distributed as proposed in the resolution, Sweden would have thirteen seats, Finland seven and Ireland five. This would mean that, in many Member States, important political powers would not be represented at EU level. This also shows how weak the democratic basis of such a Parliament would be. Compared with other federal states, the “EU state” would, on this model, be unusually centralised and offer little protection to small constituent States. A comparison might be made with the United States in which the one chamber in a two-chamber system has proportional representation, while representation in the second chamber is the same for all constituent States. In the EU, the big countries would instead dominate both chambers on the basis of the proposal we are now debating. For anyone who wants to change anything regarding monetary union or EMU, it is now, when the Treaty is being changed, that the opportunity exists. Many adherents of EMU on the have, of course, argued in favour of altering the nature of monetary union in such a way that the Central Bank is placed under democratic control and that the goals of economic policy are not merely monetary. It is noticeable that they are now completely silent and that it is now only the Confederal Group of the which is demanding the democratisation of monetary union. As you have perhaps noted, I am going to vote against the present resolution. (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Commission’s recommendation for the broad economic guidelines for 2000 may well accept a return to full employment, but it has stood by the basic approach of previous years. Although I recognise the contribution made by Parliament and our rapporteur in gaining acceptance once again for the concept of full employment, I think that the rapporteur himself, whom I congratulate on his efforts, would agree that we need to redefine what we mean by employment and by full employment. What does employed mean when we have before us a policy which dismantles working relations, minimises employment and, as a result, makes general poverty a mass phenomenon. As far as its general approach is concerned, the Commission’s recommendation forms part of a more general neo-liberal economic and social policy which, with the support of the majority of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, finds expression in the report under discussion. As far as we are concerned, the basic policy objectives should be to support public investment, stable, permanent and full employment, protect and improve the social security system and the system of social protection in general and strengthen active demand by improving the purchasing power of the workers. This is the direction the broad guidelines should be taking. The amendments which we propose to the European Parliament move in precisely this direction and we call on our fellow members to vote in favour of them.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, you will remember perfectly that, at the last plenary part-session which we held here in Brussels, all the political groups, without exception, condemned the murder of the Basque Socialist Member of Parliament, Fernando Buesa, at the hands of ETA. Since then, Madam President, dozens of Spanish and Basque citizens have been victims of attacks, extortion and threats of a type that can only be described as fascist. In fact, almost every day we witness events that take us back to the darkest days of European history. The Spanish journalist, Carlos Herrera, is a symbol of all those victims, Madam President, and I would like to ask you, on behalf of the European Parliament, to convey to him our feeling of solidarity, because this solidarity expresses the unquestionable defence of freedom of expression that we, as democrats, are obliged to make. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the battle against AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis has for a long time been one of the principal concerns of the . Moreover we welcome the consensus that now prevails regarding this report, which would not have been possible four years ago. It is disquieting to learn that deaths are still being counted in millions, particularly if one takes into account the fact that these diseases affect many children or pregnant women. It is sad and devastating to learn that these diseases are still killing even though treatments exist. The accessibility of medicines must be guaranteed. It is necessary to facilitate not only a mere reduction in prices, but also the assignment of patents, because that is necessary in order to enable developing countries to produce these products for their people, or import them at low prices. The efforts on which we agree must be targeted first and foremost at children and pregnant women. Real assistance must be provided for women, who carry within them the future of the continent. This assistance includes, in addition to treatments, information about these infections, and in that respect it is necessary to strengthen the health structures in these countries. The adoption of this report will confirm the European Union’s involvement in the struggle for the health of Africa.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I think we should apologise to Commissioner Barnier, because it is intolerable, when we are discussing such grave matters, to see our Parliament not conducting itself in a courteous manner or listening to a particularly important statement. I profoundly regret this and I would appeal to my colleagues' sense of responsibility. (Applause) The same has happened under other circumstances. When we are holding such a weighty, such a serious debate, I think at the very least Members could keep quiet and show respect for the Commissioner by listening to him. I believe we have a real problem of dysfunctional behaviour within this Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic and political benefits of enlargement will undoubtedly be far greater than its probable cost to the budget. I would add that this is already the case today. Nevertheless, it is our task precisely as one arm of the budgetary authority to discuss and engage in some serious and sober preliminary budgetary planning – at the same time allaying our emotions and fears – and to approach the figures in a rational way. On the basis of our experience with the pre-accession programme and given the take-up capacities and administrative structures in the new Member States, we can also assume that in respect of both agricultural policy and the Structural Funds integration into the Community programmes will be gradual. On this basis, even if ten new countries join before 2006 in a big bang, we will be able to meet the financial requirements of enlargement up until then within the financial perspective, as agreed in Agenda 2000: EUR 7 billion in the final stage for agricultural policy given gradual integration and from EUR 6.1 billion in 2004 to around EUR 10.9 billion for structural policy, and this compared with a current Commission preliminary draft budget of around EUR 100 billion for 2002 to put it in context. There is no doubt, however, that for the period after 2006, even taking into account compliance with future world trade obligations, we will very probably have to discuss the issue of revenue and expenditure in the European budget because in the final stages in 2013 these comparative figures could amount to EUR 17 billion and EUR 26 billion respectively. Let us not confine ourselves to looking at these two areas of budgetary policy. I have grave concerns about whether the Commission's reflections on how Europe is to be governed or the practical plans in this House to overcome the languages problem really do take sufficient account of the requirements which will need to be met if we really are to safeguard European national identities and preserve the ability of the European institutions to act in the interests of the citizens of a larger European Union. A further far more intensive debate needs to be initiated here to ensure that we are capable of acting in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE