GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to assure Mrs Wallis that I shall vote for her Amendment No 19 for the very reasons which she has given – and I hope my group will be following me. This is a matter on which clarity is of the utmost importance. Similarly we will reject the critical part of Amendment No 17, which would exclude shareholders from deciding on the merits of a bid for a company that they own. The ground for this is that it is not for governments, supervisory authorities or incumbent management to accept or frustrate a bid. It rests with the company's owners – the shareholders themselves. That is the principle on which perhaps we will divide tomorrow: what should be the over-riding concern of a law regulating takeovers. If you think that the correct thing is fairness and transparency towards all shareholders – majority and minority alike – then that determines your vote on a number of the issues here. There are some points where I would be happy to go along with the compromise amendments, particularly those affecting the position of employees. I understand Mr Lehne's desire to get the thing taken into conciliation and further clarified. I have some sympathy with his point. But we must approach this with the governing principle of shareholder protection in our minds.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly I wish to thank Ms de Palacio for her excellent introduction. The European Union’s common space policy is important. The European Space Agency is an essential part of European integration. Most of the members of the European Space Agency are members of the EU, and most of the members of the EU are also members of the European Space Agency. Space technology is a very important area for policy on research and industry. At present more than 40 000 people work in the space industry and the sector indirectly creates employment for as many as 250 000. Space research is traditionally at the forefront of all research. Many of the discoveries made there are later on applied in the circumstances of everyday life, to become of service to the whole public. By far the largest and most important of the projects jointly engaged in by the European Union and the ESA is the Galileo Satellite Navigation Programme. It is a system based on satellites and ground stations, which is intended to be introduced in 2008. It will enable receivers to locate their whereabouts and determine what time it is, with extreme accuracy, anywhere on earth. The European system differs from the American GPS and the Russian Glonas systems in that it is the most modern system, and its operation would not be adversely affected in times of crisis. The last war in Iraq showed just how important this is. The Galileo system would secure the non-dependence of the EU and the ESA on the other systems, whose management would be none of their business. The EU’s involvement is mainly restricted to developing the Galileo system, which should be completed in 2005. This phase will cost at least EUR 1.1 billion, of which the EU has undertaken to pay half and the ESA the other half. In addition, the private sector should be involved in the project, contributing around EUR 200 million. The Galileo system is vital for the development of European research and technology. The EU and the ESA countries should be at the global forefront of space technology.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Morillon report treats European defence as part of a realistic, responsible strategy of solidarity and complementarity with the United States, and it therefore represents a substantial undertaking, involving planning, economic sacrifices and military investment. It is a necessary, urgent step forwards based on not underestimating the new terrorist and political threats. It is a coherent agenda which I had occasion to propose last year with the study ‘Una spada europea’ [A European sword]. The report avoids dangerous illusions which would not make the world safer and more democratic and certainly not make Europe more united. One of these illusions is the rekindling of unilateral pacifism, a return to the unilateral pacifism of the past of ‘Better red than dead’. Another is the illusion of a Europe which is independent, powerful and authoritative because it has broken with the United States, an illusion which resurrects the short-circuiting tactics of Gaullism, both hostile towards the United States and insensitive to European supranationality, particularly in matters of foreign and defence policy. This is an illusion which is deeply rooted in European nationalism and in ideologies which are now obsolete, an illusion which explains the strange alliance formed between right and left in the face of the war in Iraq and which, by contrast, exalts the principle of democratic intervention. This political illusion is more dangerous than imperial unilateralism or blind pacifism: while ostensibly guiding Europe it has divided it; it has divided the Fifteen, it has offended the countries of Eastern Europe at the very time of the reunification process, it has widened the gap between the Union and the United States and, before the right of veto could be exercised, it has helped to paralyse the Security Council, justifying military intervention outside the context of the UN. Before abandoning itself to developing the institutional system, the Union must define its political vision more clearly, it must ensure the security of its people, territory and borders – which it has failed to do in the Balkans – it must take note of the erosion of arms control and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of bloody dictatorships, and it must strive resolutely to combat terrorism and to bring about security for Israel and a democratic Palestinian state. If the Union wants to be allied with the United States rather than subordinate or hostile to it, neither resigned nor resentful, it must develop common defence and gradually assume leadership of the Atlantic Alliance, to which the United States is now only contributing 8% of its forces. To this end, it can take as a basis the Saint-Malo agreement between France and the United Kingdom and General Morillon’s report, which are the greatest achievements of European security policy and its development, which must be consolidated, built upon and extended to include the entire Union.

Political group: ELDR
Congratulations, Mr Lange. Five years ago, you needed three readings to achieve a sound result in the car oil programme. Now, and I am thereby briefly looking at Mr Bowe, agreement has been reached with the Council after first reading. That is first-rate! Air pollution in the traditional sense of the word will soon be a thing of the past in Europe, at least once we have introduced the new engines in cars, lorries, in ordinary engines, chain saws and now also in pile drivers, freight trains and inland waterway vessels. The Commission did not want to introduce legislation, particularly for those trains and inland waterway vessels, until much later on. Parliament and the Council, though, refused to be thrown off balance and regulated this straight away, because it is technically possible. Freight trains and inland waterway vessels use much less energy, simply because resistance is much less significant. This means that the environmental benefit from freight trains and inland waterway vessels is completely back to what it used to be, something with which we in the Group of the are delighted.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the crux of this evening’s debate obviously seems to be that unless clear and unmistakable distinctions are drawn between products that cover biometric risks, as the rapporteur, Mr Kuckelkorn, has proposed, there will be no single market for supplementary company pensions, or not a genuine single market at any rate. We need tax harmonisation if we are to make the single market an attractive proposition. We need taxation during the pension payout period, as proposed in the agreement, because only then will the cross-border aspect hold some appeal for potential members. After all, why should the Finance Ministers pay twice? They will have to pay once for departing from an input taxation system, and they will then have to take a decrease in tax revenue on board at a later date. At the same time, they will have to help foot the bill for any unsatisfactory products they have helped to promote which do not prevent poverty in old age, and they might even have to pay a third time because, in addition, they will have to finance poverty in old age from public coffers. These Finance Ministers may then have to pay yet again because they will have to resign their posts, as punishment for their foolish actions. That is why the debate as presented to us in Amendment No 30, on the freedom of choice of the insured, is a pseudo discussion. I have this to say to those of you that support this argument: these are the same insured whom only a few weeks ago a majority of you undertook to allow to participate in decisions on the fund capacity, on the use of the amounts paid in, which are often a slice of people’s wages, and you gave an undertaking to these same people that those who act on your behalf would be involved in making sure that the funds in question were put to good use. We are very much in favour of the citizens of Europe having the freedom to decide, but, that being the case, let us be quite clear about what we mean by the principle of subsidiarity. According to catholic social doctrine, subsidiarity means that we should actually enable the small units – the families and most dependent employees – to make their own provisions for old-age, and that we should concern ourselves not so much with the investment interests of individual suppliers of products as a criteria, but with how we can reduce the number of hurdles to vesting periods. We must talk about how we are to organise the codecision rights of the insured and their representatives, and we must also discuss how investment capital is to flow into spheres that will generate worthwhile new jobs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioners, I am reminded of the optimism caricatured by the French philosopher Voltaire in the person of Pangloss, which, in fact, derives from the philosophy of the German philosopher Leibniz, according to which 'everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds'. If Voltaire were to return here, however, he would also draw a caricature, certainly a very impressive one, of those that today think that everything is for the worst in the worst of all possible worlds. This almost phantasmagoric pessimism that affects many commentators, many politicians and many Members of this House is unjustified. It is unjustified because at the Johannesburg Summit, as I see it, indication was given of the right way forwards, the correct diagnosis was made, and the European Union acted correctly at the summit, and we should be congratulating it on this instead of being constantly critical. The summit pointed in the right direction but we must also take account of the fact that the rich countries are going to have to pay for the policies that were outlined in Johannesburg and that control mechanisms must be established to ensure, as has already been said, that words are translated into action. I would also say that the Johannesburg Summit served to reveal some of our fears and weaknesses in analysing the world’s problems. I wish to highlight only one of these, if I may, which is the issue of birth control and the world’s population. It makes no sense that this problem should not be addressed because we fear religious dogma, the type of dogma that Voltaire condemned, or because we fear being considered Malthusian. We all know that it is precisely where the population grows at a faster pace that we see more poverty and more degradation of nature. And, therefore, this issue of birth control, of the global regulation of the world’s population cannot be ignored in any discussion about the survival of the earth and about a more humane life for human beings.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, to tie in with the rapporteur’s closing words, I wish to thank everyone who has taken part and especially the Commission staff for their help. The issue of concern to us, however technical it is, is of extraordinary political and social importance because it is widely known that undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), including pension funds, are currently the preferred form of saving for the majority of European citizens. The first problem we came up against was that there were two directives: one called a ‘product’ directive, which allowed these bodies to invest in products from which they were hitherto denied access, and another, which proposed substantially increasing capital requirements. Both the Commission and Parliament were tempted to immediately adopt the so-called ‘product’ directive and delay the adoption of the so-called ‘management’ directive. This Parliament warned that it was dangerous to allow these undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities – which, I repeat monopolise the market in public savings – to move into deeper waters without any guarantee that their ships were prepared for what would be a more daring day’s sailing than they had hitherto embarked on. As the rapporteur indicated, the purpose of the first discussion – and I am limiting myself here to the product directive – was to decide what they could invest in. He referred to non-standardised derivatives, index funds, the cascade effect, etc., which are technical issues that I will not go into now. What I do want to say is that, in my group’s opinion, a balance has been achieved between giving greater opportunities to management bodies and, therefore, greater opportunities to investors and the protection, the caution, that must be present in any discussion of such delicate matters. Parliament wanted to send a message to the Commission. As on previous occasions, Parliament wants to be flexible on the adoption of the directives of the financial services action plan. We want this directive to be adopted rapidly and we do not, therefore, want to have to go to conciliation. We have therefore, limited our amendments to one – which I personally am not in favour of, although I will be voting for it – which consists of creating a ‘grandfather’ clause, in other words, creating a transitional period so that currently existing bodies have additional time in which to raise their capital. Mention has been made of another amendment by Mr Goebbels, which he is going to withdraw, but I think it is extraordinarily intelligent and is the second message that Parliament is sending to the Commission. The first, I repeat, is not tabling amendments that cannot be accepted by the Council and the Commission. The second, even though we are not involved in a Lamfalussy procedure, is to warn that we will always have to be flexible. We will always show willingness to be flexible on the legislative procedure, but we are not prepared to concede the codecision powers that Parliament has taken such a long time to gain.

Political group: PPE-DE
The big challenge now faced by the EU is to bring about national understanding for cross-border measures and European cooperation, arising from the insight that a national perspective is not enough where every issue is concerned. There must be an integrated approach to the European issue, taking place at European level and within the national parties and civil society, and the issue must, above all, be a part of the political consciousness of Europeans. If people’s perception is that politicians and administrators are producing propaganda-style material, this may damage the European idea. Understanding should instead be brought about in relation to those issues that people confront in their everyday lives and that they see as being impossible to resolve on the basis of a national perspective. There is also always a risk of arbitrariness in determining and distributing this type of public aid. We therefore choose to abstain from voting on this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Churchill, who I think was a Conservative, indicated on more than one occasion that he thought the democratic system was not great, but it was the best that we had and we had to defend it and protect it and, indeed, we have to regulate it. There is no doubt that all the evidence of history indicates that we have to regulate the funding of political parties. There is no other way of ensuring that parties are not corrupted. We have far too many examples right across Europe of private money corrupting politics and the regulators. A lot of people, certainly in my own country, are shocked that some of the money they have paid for buying a house has been used to corrupt the planning laws. They will be quite happy to have their tax money used to ensure that the political system remains uncorrupted or becomes corruption-free. There have been a lot of spurious arguments here tonight, particularly about thresholds for receiving funding. I am not aware of a single Member State in the European Union that does not have a regulation with regard to thresholds for the funding of political parties. Indeed, there are thresholds for getting elected to Parliament, never mind getting money for political parties. The Statute we are dealing with, taken together with the Statute of Members of Parliament and with the very positive outcome of the Convention, indicates a coming-of-age for the European Union. I hope that the summit this week takes its courage in its hands, approves this Statute and approves the outcome of the Convention. We can really say that we are on the way to creating a European demos, a real public space for the citizens of Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, two years ago the Commission presented two proposed modifications, one of the sixth directive and the other of the Regulation on administrative cooperation. The aim of both was to end the discrimination suffered by European companies in comparison with those of third countries, particularly American ones, in terms of the provision of services. This discrimination is due to the fact that companies from outside the Union do not pay value-added tax when they provide electronic services, while European companies are obliged to pay it. Since this is an urgent issue, Parliament produced two reports very quickly. At the moment, the Council are asking us for a change to the legal basis exclusively for the Regulation on administrative cooperation. I am not going to expand on this issue, but I wish to say they are two different things. The Committee believes that we should not proceed with the change of legal basis, but that the issue should be studied with the greatest urgency, in order to put an end to this discrimination and, furthermore, as Parliament has requested, in order to facilitate the use of electronic means for identifying clients, putting an end to the costs which are faced in particular by small and medium-sized businesses. I would therefore advise the House to accept the Council’s request in relation to the urgency procedure, and not accept the change of legal basis in relation to this issue. It is one thing to deny a material request and quite another to deny it an urgency procedure so that these two proposals can be implemented very quickly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in relation to the previous debate I am not interested in clear replies from the Commission. I want clear replies from the governments who are actually indicted in these resolutions before this House this afternoon. If these governments, including the Egyptian Government, do not take human rights seriously then we must take further action, if necessary suspending any agreements that we have with them. The appalling onslaught against minorities in Egypt is terrifying to behold. People are being entrapped on the Internet because of their homosexuality. Let me refer to one individual, because this is what human rights are about: the rights of individuals. We in this House standing here, talking, debating, take everything for granted, yet these people, because of their difference, have everything robbed from them. Do we listen? No. Some of us talk on, whilst others call for tolerance. A young man, Wissam Abyad, was entrapped on the Internet. He went with a friend to meet a supposed gay man. He was arrested, along with his friend. He is now in prison. He is awaiting appeal. I call for his sentence to be suspended immediately, because that is this man's only way out. The cases of two more men out of the 52 who were arrested over a year ago were not reviewed. They are undergoing not forced labour, but hard labour. As to the three British men awaiting trial in Egypt and the allegations of torture that they have made, have their cases been independently investigated? Of course not. I say this to Egypt, and I say it as a friend: the litmus test of any civilised society is how it treats its minorities. It is for Egypt to show us here in this House, that it takes the rights of their minorities seriously, to call for an end to discrimination against those minorities and to release from prison and end immediately the investigations and the arrests of gay men throughout Egypt which worry us here in this House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism had an in-depth discussion on the URBAN initiative which produced many ideas. As the smallest Community initiative in existence, we therefore proposed an increase in its funding through an amendment which was rejected. We regret this as there was actually money left over from the Structural Funds in some countries which could really have helped with pilot projects. We should remember that it is these URBAN projects which specifically allow a truly urban policy to be established. The Commission should also pay attention to coherence between the various policies which are in place. It should make URBAN projects coherent with future projects in budget lines entitled ‘sustainable urban policy’. Finally, there is currently still no European urban policy within the European Union. Perhaps this point could be developed in the context of reorganisation and the Intergovernmental Conference so that the European Union finally has a true urban policy.

Political group: Verts-ALE