GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to pick up on what was said this morning. I believe that transatlantic relations are regularly subjected to crucial tests. What we are experiencing now is nothing new; it is not a new conflict. Steel is an old chestnut. As many Members have already indicated, we need to proceed with sufficient toughness. But we should also be guided by reason, wisdom and far-sightedness. The President-in-Office of the Council has pointed out that our relations are historical ones and that we have many values in common, but that we need to shift from a crisis situation to a process of dialogue. I would certainly support him in that. However, this also means that the Council needs to consider new initiatives. It was the Spanish Presidency that established the new transatlantic agenda. I believe that the Spanish Presidency should also undertake an analysis and a review and present new proposals at the next summit. I would like to ask what work you have done on this so far and what the nature of the Spanish Presidency's proposals will be. We need an update, as James Elles said this morning. We need an EU strategy that goes beyond what we have at present. The Commission proposal is good, but it does not go far enough, and it does not cover all factors. In particular, it does not include a sufficiently clear EU strategy. Commissioner Lamy said today that he is investigating several areas, including intellectual property and the auditing of accounts. In my own report, which I shall be presenting on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy together with James Elles for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I shall be presenting some proposals on this. In particular, you will be interested to see that economic relations are very close and that in many sectors it is already fair to talk about a transatlantic market. That does not of course mean that trade conflicts can just be glossed over, quite the opposite. A small delegation of us will be in Toledo on Monday, and the topic of relations between the USA and the WTO will be on the agenda. I would be grateful if you could briefly say something more about our approach at that meeting.

Political group: PSE
On behalf of Mr Xarchakos, who cannot be here for reasons beyond his control, I would like to thank the Commissioner.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Sasi, Commissioner, it is with relief that my fellow Members and myself welcomed the statement from the European Union’s Foreign Affairs Council the day before yesterday, forcefully condemning the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in Chechnya. It is with relief that we heard this morning the very firm position adopted on the matter by Mr Solana and his undertaking to bring his weight to bear, as of this afternoon in Istanbul, in order to ensure that international law and human dignity is respected in this part of the world, and it is with relief that we have just heard you tell us, Mr Patten, that you are shortly to add your contribution to that of Mr Solana in this area. We were, in fact, in the majority in this House in condemning the methods adopted by the Russian army to quash under fire any sort of potential resistance to its advance without taking into consideration the losses thereby caused among the civilian population. We were also in the majority in deploring, together with the majority of public opinion in Europe, the striking contrast between the din of the bombing and the sustained silence of the governments of the European Union. I can bear witness to this because yesterday, I chaired a meeting of all the groups of this Parliament where a draft joint resolution was finalised which, unlike others, will not be a compromise text and will in no way be a compromise between divergent positions, but will indeed be a synthesis enriched by the proposals of each of the political families united in a common desire to offer Parliament’s contribution to a political solution of the tragic situation currently causing bloodshed in Chechnya. In this resolution, which I have no doubt will be massively supported by my fellow Members, we are adding our voices to those of the Council in condemning the action currently being taken and in requesting that negotiations are initiated directly with the elected representatives of the population of Chechnya. Together with you, we are requesting that the necessary humanitarian aid be deployed immediately, in order to provide assistance to the hundreds of thousands of people displaced due to this conflict, but we are requesting, Mr Patten, that provision is made for the suspension of economic aid to Russia, initially, if Russia continues with its indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population and does not seek a negotiated settlement. I fully understand, and we hope with all our hearts that the task of negotiation which you are going to enter into, together with Mr Solana, will be successful. We also propose, and we are agreed upon this, I am sure, that a conference should be held, and that Parliament should participate in this conference.

Political group: PPE-DE
You are right to call these political games. If the people objecting now really cared about racism, they would have come to the committee meetings and put down amendments. (Applause) On Amendment No 16

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, taking the helm of the European Union for six months is a major challenge for any country, and that is true, Mr Simitis, of your Greek Presidency as well. The five priorities that you have enumerated and set yourself are, politically speaking, not merely a matter of logic but also of necessity. The list does not sound particularly sensational, but, as you will already have gathered from the speeches here in the European Parliament, a number of these topics carry within themselves the seeds of potential tensions, both within the European Union and beyond its borders. The smouldering Iraq crisis, along with America's continuing deployment of troops in this region and the divergent views on this emanating from London, Berlin and Paris, demand sensitive handling. What I would ask the Greek Presidency in this regard is what measures they contemplate taking in order to perhaps get the EU to have a single line on this issue. My second question has to do with enlargement, and, in particular, with your strategy in relation to Turkey. In Copenhagen, Turkey was given a specific date, and the prospect of the commencement of accession negotiations, subject to its fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria by that deadline. This is a considerable obstacle to surmount, and it is at present far from clear that Turkey will be able to meet these conditions. Quite apart from that, I believe that it is wrong to be always offering Turkey only an either/or choice and not the option of a privileged special relationship, a perhaps far more rewarding prospect, and one that has already been addressed in a report by Mr Brok. The question I have in this context relates to Greek strategy towards Turkey. There is a third point, and this is something to which I would like to give favourable mention. Your declaration of belief, in the chapter on energy policy, in the establishment of common rules on nuclear safety is something that I very much welcome. Do you think this has a real chance of being more widely accepted in the Council?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, is it really not naïve to think that this directive is the panacea for the adverse consequences of smoking? Does the European Commission really believe that a complete ban on tobacco advertising is going to stop people smoking? This is wishful thinking as far as I am concerned. I also take the view that people must have the freedom to find out about products as long as they are not prohibited products. I also think that there are better ways of tackling this problem, for example by drafting European guidelines that lay down standards for tobacco goods. Finally, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that what we have here is a contradiction in se. We are going to ban tobacco advertising, but each year millions in European subsidies go to tobacco growers. Make of that what you will.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in addition to what we have been saying over and over again for some time now, I would like to make two comments. Regarding the Middle East, we are in a global situation in which there has just been a new development, which is not yet reflected in either the Brok or Titley Report. The US Administration is putting forward a new strategy for re-organising the world. As part of this new strategy, the US Administration is telling us that there are situations in which we must intervene and take preventative action. This is its first argument. Its second argument is if the United Nations supports this action, all well and good; if it is against this action, it does not matter, we shall take action with the support of our friends. I urge the European Union to draft a memorandum in response to this new situation. I do not want the response from Mr Schröder, from Mr Blair or Mr Chirac, or from Mr Anyone. I want a response from Europe regarding a situation which completely changes the last 50 years of history. Over the last 50 years, we have attempted to put in place a global justice system and global rules by means of global institutions such as the UN. It is clear that, in a region such as the Middle East, there are two states, two entities that do not respect the decisions of the UN. Israel does not respect the decisions of the UN, it is true, but there are those within the Palestinian Movement who do not respect them either. I therefore fully agree with the condemnation of Israel, of the Israeli policy, but I do not agree with the way the Palestinians condemn the attacks, which is purely verbal. This is one of the problems: we are faced with two sides who do not respect what the United Nations or the political forces decide. Yet the two nations concerned need political forces which respect what global law asks of them. Both sides need political leaders which respects what is asked. That is why I believe that we in Europe – unlike the US – shall only make progress in the Middle East if we show the same empathy, the same sympathy for the Israelis as we show the Palestinians, only if we feel the same way for the Israelis as we do the Palestinians. If someone, a political force, decides to support one side rather than the other, we shall have lost, because it will be impossible to go forward. This is why the role of the European Union is so important. The Union is the only political entity which is capable today of making each side see reason and of helping, at the same time, both the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is this policy that Europe must pursue; but above all, Europe must condemn Ariel Sharon when he blockades Yasser Arafat and condemn the Palestinians when they hide behind terrorists.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we are not having a very lively debate. Why? The impression we are giving is that the European Union is very passive. There are the movements of the global market, there is the policy of the United States, and we are looking on. With regard to these events we are far from having an economic policy. We do not have a doctrine of public economy in Europe and we are therefore a bit closeted here, I would say, in the Ministry of Words. Allow me to make three observations. Firstly, the analysis of economic conditions presented by the Central Bank and by the Commission could, in fact, be summed up more or less by a slowdown in the global space, even though, for us, the growth indicators are good for the next few months, that is for the coming 18 months, and do not encourage us to budge. We are lamentably lacking initiatives to consolidate the potential and perhaps real growth of the European Union. For my part, I would lay great stress on the need for public and private investments and on the accumulated delays in the matter of research and training. Instead of that, the report unfortunately takes up the anti-inflationist obsession we also find in the discourse of the Central Bank, and the failure of the Galileo project would be disastrous. Secondly, we have said that the social policy was necessary to consolidate growth. In the words of Emilio Gabaglio, the impression is that we are witnessing a sort of derailment between Lisbon and Stockholm. We should give concrete expression to our desire to develop knowledge and skills in the European Union in the form of a spectacular initiative. Thirdly, we talk about an acceleration of balanced liberalisation. The debate between competition and service of general interest has only just started. I am convinced that the internal market will not come to fruition unless we impose obligations to provide services of general interest at the Community level. Here too, we lack initiatives. I hope that the next few months will prove me wrong.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, the market organisation in fruit and vegetables was reformed in 1997 and, three years down the line, the results have not lived up to expectations. Based on reinforcing the economic power of producers, creating collective projects and contracting with public authorities within the framework of part-financed operational funds, the results of this reform have finally proved to be inadequate and disappointing. The reform has not brought the future we all hoped for at the outset because, in fact, as was highlighted by a previous speaker, the membership rate of the producer organisations has remained very low: less than 40%. Under these conditions, the producer organisations have been unable to have a real impact on controlling and promoting products in the fruit and vegetables sector. At the same time, although the EAGGF budget for this sector has been increasing steadily since 1997, it has nonetheless always been tightened during the accounting period because of the actual under-utilisation of appropriations due to the unsuitability of the rules of allocation. We are thus faced with a paradoxical situation where one of the most important sectors of European agriculture, which covers 20% of production units, employs a great deal of manpower in production and processing, and accounts for 16% of final agricultural production, is ultimately one of the sectors least taken into account by the common agricultural policy. Against this background, I naturally want to highlight the opportunity provided by the Commission proposal that we are debating this evening. But I want, above all, to congratulate Mr Jové Peres on the quality of his report, whose judicious proposals aim to improve even more significantly the results of this production channel for the countries of southern Europe, most notably by setting public support at 4.5% of the value of the marketed production and by increasing it in some cases to 6% in order to encourage producer organisations to pool their produce. Finally, I hope that the Council of Ministers will make a speedy decision in respect of this reform so that it can come into force in 2001 with the appropriate funding.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this communication is the Commission’s response to the European Parliament’s request to present its thoughts and ideas about new neighbours and privileged partnerships. Many points are made, but essentially this is simply about applying the original idea behind the European Communities in a new context, namely identifying common interests to enable the Union and its neighbours to enjoy stability, respect human rights and to face future challenges together. Commissioner Verheugen, you have just mentioned strategic visions and that is my first point. We will also have to discuss again whether all of the visions in this paper are actually feasible and that is why we must not neglect to consider what is realistic and what will really happen in practice. I should like to make it clear that there are a whole series of questions that the Committee on Budgets obviously wishes to clarify. Before we initiate programmes, I think that we should consider how well the existing programmes, such as TACIS and MEDA, have worked. I might for example remind you that we still have considerable outstanding commitments amounting to billions in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. This also prompts my question about how practicable the ideas are that have been put forward so far. The communication explicitly mentions increased financial assistance, but we first need to know how it is envisaged to implement these programmes in practice, and I mean in each individual country, not in general. I wish to make it clear that we support the proposal as part of this initiative to set up a New Neighbourhood Instrument to promote cross-border measures, which are proving problematic because of the different financing instruments that are currently used. In addition, we have said that we think it would be appropriate if at least the CARDS part of funding under such a Neighbourhood Instrument could be financed for example under Heading 7. On the basis of past experience, I think it is also important to explain in detail how the Action Plans recommended for each country differ from the Country Strategy Papers that we have today and in what respect they constitute greater added value. I should like to make one final comment on the European constitution because we discussed it this morning: clearly, at all times in the procedure we must also ensure that Parliament’s right to shape and decide on legislative and budgetary matters is respected when drafting these definitive strategies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a very interesting report on the regulation of domestic help which the rapporteur, Mrs Smet, has tabled, but I do in fact have mixed feelings about it. It is, of course, absolutely essential to try to get to grips with illicit work within different sectors of society, especially when it comes to domestic services. It is also high time that we accorded more status to work in the home and recognised domestic work as a perfectly valid occupation. It is important, too, to ensure that immigrant women are not exploited in terms of everything from poor wages to a lack of social security and outright oppression. To demand, as proposed in the report, that the Member States use a directive or some other form of legislation both to adjust prices and to offer tax deductions for domestic services would, however, be to send out a completely wrong signal. It would be to go too far and would also be the wrong route to take. It is inconsistent with the determination to see domestic work as a perfectly valid occupation. What, in fact, is the rationale behind saying that you are to have tax deductions for having your floors polished but not for having your rubbish taken away? To see domestic services as something completely different from other services is not at all the same thing as raising the status of domestic work. Finally, I just want to add that I should like to have seen a report which acknowledged that, within the near future, we shall be in great need of the manpower offered by our immigrants.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I share the Council’s view that FARC-EP can justifiably be criticised, especially for murders and kidnappings of Indian leaders. At the same time, it is absolutely clear that it is the paramilitaries who, aided by Colombia’s military, are responsible for most, by far, of the violence in Colombia. If those responsible for the violence are to be deported, it would have made just as much sense to have expelled Colombia’s ambassador. Nor must we forget that those on the legal in Colombia are systematically executed if they appear in public. My practical question to the Council is as follows: did the United States exert pressure and demand that FARC representatives’ visas be withdrawn before the EU decided to do this?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I just wish to say that I was one of the people who tried to take the flight. I have always supported Strasbourg and have never voted against sitting here. However, I have decided that I really cannot come to Strasbourg any longer. None of us should be coming here. If Air France cannot get its act together and get Members of the European Parliament to Strasbourg, then we have to decide for ourselves that we meet in Brussels. It is not anti-French: it is anti-Air France. I am asking Air France to get its act together and the President of Parliament again to appeal to Air France, to appeal to the President of France, and say that, unless something is done, every single Member of the European Parliament will be against meeting in Strasbourg. It is just not acceptable to spend at least 12 hours travelling here and miss a whole day's work. (Loud applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as vice-chairman of the Lithuania delegation I would like to concentrate on that country and in this connection on the Ignalina nuclear power plant. I expressly welcome the fact that we heard officially from that country at the beginning of the week, from Prime Minister Brazauskas, that Lithuania also intends to shut down the plant’s second reactor for good in 2009. That was made possible because the European Union has entered into obligations for the period from 2004 to 2006 totalling approximately EUR 245 million. But I say, too, that we shall also have to assist this country after 2006 with the entire decommissioning of the nuclear power plant. Of course I have my doubts as to whether the Union will have to pay all of the EUR 2.4 billion that Lithuania wants for that, spread over 20 years, because every country that operates a nuclear power plant in the normal way has to make provision for the time after it is closed. One thing I find interesting in this connection is that with respect to Ignalina we are for the first time rightly demanding something of a candidate country that cannot be found in the acquis communautaire because – lamentably – we have as yet no Community acquis concerning the safety of nuclear power plants. I consider that really to be a political scandal and I hope we will arrive at a common standard for that for the future. I hear that some members of the Council, the usual suspects, are already objecting to the closure of the plant and the reasons why they must close it being so expressly included in the accession treaty for Lithuania because they are afraid that could indirectly create an acquis. I hope that Commissioner De Palacio will be successful in pushing through her announced package of measures laying down for the first time common standards for the safety of nuclear installations under Euratom auspices. If we want to continue with nuclear energy, that can only be the highest standard technically possible, but I really want to use this as an opportunity to say one thing: we must not be unreasonable in asking from the candidate countries what we do not ask of ourselves. In the present case we are right to ask that, but then we within the Union must take the appropriate steps ourselves when it comes to safety standards for nuclear installations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not want to discuss what has been said. I am just very glad that I came into the Chamber early in order to do some work in peace and quiet, and then witnessed an interesting debate. I would like to congratulate you, Mr President, on permitting it and making it possible, and on giving your colleagues in the Bureau a good example to follow in the future. What a pity so few Members were here, but perhaps more will turn up in the Chamber when word gets around. (Applause)

Political group: PSE