GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I share the rapporteur’s concern about the fact that evidently, European institutions are unable to issue transparent, readily accessible regulations which are clear and understandable to people with average IQ levels. All credit to Mr Doorn, who has managed to put his finger on the problem. It should be highlighted, rightly so, that EU citizens and businesses consider complex legislation and red tape to be evidence of a lack of efficiency within the institutions. The causes are obvious. As long as the Commission does not adopt a clear, centralised approach to SLIM, the SLIM initiative remains an exercise with no strings attached. It should be anything but that. In my opinion, two goals need to be brought into focus, in addition to the recommendations which are currently in the report. First of all, the SLIM initiative must be lent a binding character, particularly with EU enlargement on the horizon. Secondly, Member States must, as of now, set a good example by guaranteeing a correct, but above all, timely transposition of European directives into national legislation. All too often, we have been under the impression that the process of simplification, which is so crucial, is much like a procession of Echternach. Pending the Union’s enlargement, we must shift up a gear if we want to develop the internal market in a professionally responsible manner. I am delighted that the Member State which I have the honour of representing here, has realised that special measures need to be taken, as is the case in the Netherlands, to simplify legislation in a consistent manner. Convinced of the need for simplified legislation, the will be lending the Doorn report its unqualified support.

Political group: ELDR
I believe, as has been so often repeated, that we can indeed be truly satisfied with this budget. Nevertheless now that I have heard everyone in this long debate, I wonder if what we are experiencing today is not the quiet before the storm. This time it has all gone well, we all got through it satisfactorily, but we have put things off till the future. How will things go next year? How can this budget continue in the long term to fulfil the function it fulfils at present if it is talked about in such overblown terms? If one listens to the individual Finance Ministers, it seems as if the major part of their problems resides in this European budget. I explain to people in the Netherlands that out of every hundred euros that they earn, they pay forty-three euros in tax and that only one euro of that goes to the European Union. Yet everyone wonders why so much is spent, although from a national perspective relatively little money is involved. I fear that one of the reasons is that it is a nice red herring, because one then does not need to talk about the billions that are spent at national level. People are reluctant to look closely at these. But they are always prepared to talk about what is after all a relatively insignificant sum, especially because it is supposedly going abroad and that is always easier to talk about. So I think that we must bear this in mind. If for example you look at defence expenditure, which is of course entirely national, you find that we spend approximately half what the Americans spend, but that we achieve only ten per cent of the return. So you can easily see that a collective approach to such a policy can solve many more problems than doing it all separately. I believe that recently such noises are heard too infrequently. Everyone is surely too preoccupied with the relatively small amount. That is hanging over our heads and that is, I believe the quiet we are still experiencing, which may become a storm once we are confronted with all the consequences of the expansion. We can survive it, we have laid the right foundations, but we must be certain that we can see it through.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am pleased that the Council is considering this question. The President of the Council comes from a country, Portugal, which is directly at risk from just this type of situation. If we stretched our imaginations, we could envisage a situation where, between now and next summer, an oil tanker may run aground under similar circumstances off the Algarve, wreck the Portuguese summer tourist industry, with a bit of luck the sea currents would carry the pollution towards the island of Madeira – because they move in that direction – and furthermore, wreck tourism in the Canary Islands as well. Does the President of the Council not think that we should stop talking and implement tough measures in this area, bearing in mind that we now have the means to control this type of oil tanker on the high seas? Of course, the story of the Erika seems comical. A French-owned ship, under a Maltese flag of convenience, an Indian crew, a sea-worthiness certificate issued by Italy, in Sicily, with the last inspection carried out in Bulgaria, I think. The ship was sinking and the captain realised that it was sinking and that it was not even going to make it to the next port. This kind of situation should not be allowed. The damage to your country, Mr President, and to mine, Spain, could be horrendous.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for quite a long time, we Danes had a very major problem in that we were unable to watch Danish news on television. Then, the problem was solved, thanks to our efficient Quaestor over there. We have now, however, run up against another problem inasmuch as a dispute between the Danish Broadcasting Corporation and Danish journalists means that we are again unable to obtain any news. Could you not demonstrate sympathy with the journalists in the hope that the dispute might in that way be ended and that we might again be able to obtain information on the same terms as our fellow MEPs. I really do hope that you will do this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Switzerland is trying to keep the heavy goods vehicles that pass through the country off the routes through the Alps, and to make those vehicles which do manage to pass through pay for rail improvements. Austria would probably like to do the same for north-south traffic, but membership of the European Union puts obstacles in the way of this. German and Italian road transport operators would prefer to have a free passage, as would the Dutch operators that are strongly represented in the sector. When Austria joined the European Union, a compromise was reached on a distribution arrangement. Since then, the country has been put under pressure to allow more and larger lorries through. As a result, anyone wanting to protect those living in the area and their environment against the air and noise pollution from large flows of lorries now has cause to mistrust the motives for each new arrangement. Because the solution that is now being proposed consists of a combination of quotas, bans and charges, the majority of my group will still give it the benefit of the doubt for 2004, but the problem cannot be solved without building a railway tunnel under the Brenner Pass.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, 40 million European citizens are affected by some type of disability, but these individuals’ full participation in society is not yet a reality because they still suffer prejudice and lack fundamental rights in terms of access to education, to gainful employment, to information and communication, as well as difficulties in access to the built environment and to transport. There are some loopholes which must be closed. Firstly, the international treaties currently in force in the field of human rights do apply to persons with disabilities but none of them contains specific and binding provisions in this area. Then we have the European Union, which has been relatively active in protecting persons with disabilities, but which adopts measures that are intended only to establish a general framework for equal treatment in employment. I therefore congratulate the rapporteur, who calls for the adoption of a United Nations convention. This convention will be able to highlight the serious problems facing disabled persons in their daily lives. I wish to take this opportunity to recall that the organisations representing disabled persons must participate fully in the drafting of this convention, and in defining and assessing all the measures intended for them. Despite the Commissioner’s understandable caution about the commitment of the Member States, I would ask the Commission not to delay presenting a wide-ranging Community directive on the rights of the disabled and incorporating these rights into our cooperation and development policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am acting as the representative of the air traffic controllers protesting against the European Commission proposal which, in the name of the attractive slogan “single European sky”, will clear the way for the privatisation of air traffic control. The Atkins report clears the way for the monopoly of private groups that have their eye on air traffic control which, with the increase in traffic, is likely to make money. This reports mentions delays, which are, apparently, increasingly frequent. But how would subjecting air traffic control to the requirements of private profit possibly put an end to delays? It is precisely the airlines’ quest for profit that has led them to make the choices that cause these delays. It is in the interests of passengers and their safety, and in the interests of employees in this sector for air traffic control to remain a public service, dedicated exclusively to ensuring the smooth running of air traffic. Competition and the quest for profit in an area as sensitive as air traffic control will inevitably lead to disaster. If it is necessary to put an end to national peculiarities with regard to air traffic management, and if it is legitimate to unify the European air space, this must be achieved by rejecting any idea of privatisation, competition, or quest for profitability, and we will vote against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have a very simple suggestion to make to the other groups and that is to follow the example of the Group of the by nominating two Vice-Chairmen, one man and one woman. From experience I can say that this solution does not only provide advantages from a political point of view, but also in terms of quality of life. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to say first of all that I support the enlargement process, and I want to see the applicant countries as part of the EU; however, what I am about to say may seem to contradict that. The Commission proposal for the Enlargement Treaty was changed by the Council with the addition of Annex XV. This, as primary law within the Treaty, is a direct attack on Parliament's rights. For the past few weeks, I, as chairman of the Committee on Budgets, have led the trialogue delegation seeking to alleviate the damage caused by Annex XV. We have come to a conclusion which I consider to be a second-best solution. The draft declaration agreed by Parliament and the Council includes, in its Paragraph 1, a means of derogating from the Treaty, which I hope will safeguard Parliament's rights. The simple answer would have been to withdraw Annex XV, but that has not been done, and as long as it remains, then I personally have a real problem with this. It is bad enough to see the Council trying to take unilateral action on an adjustment of the financial perspective from 2004 to 2006, but to see the inclusion of a guaranteed ceiling on agricultural expenditure up to the year 2013 is totally unacceptable. I consider the Chirac/Schroeder deal on this to be a shabby affair, a clandestine deal in this age of transparency. That the other Member States agreed to this in Copenhagen was hard to believe, but for this now to be endorsed in the Treaty is just a step too far. I cannot therefore vote for enlargement because to do so is to accept Annex XV within the Treaty and that is impossible for me. I will therefore abstain, with a very heavy heart, on all the final votes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, the EU’s Northern Dimension is not the Union’s internal market policy but a neighbouring regions and foreign policy. The question is above all about cooperation with those areas of Russia which are close to the EU’s borders. As far as our group is concerned, we wish to focus attention on the word ‘cooperation.’ There is a need to foster cooperation among people as well as just companies. Besides money we also have to export social welfare and democracy to the northern neighbouring regions. Our group supports projects to prevent the sexual exploitation of women and children and to combat the disease and social problems that poverty brings with it. Poverty causes sickness. We are not pleased with the way the Commission has handled the issue of the EU’s Northern Dimension. It has to be more than just a policy on Russia. The Commission has been unable to create any substance to the projects recorded in the programmes. The same unfortunately has to be said for the countries to hold the presidency this year. Neither Greece nor Italy mentioned the Northern dimension in their list of priorities. They have pulled homewards in the direction of the Mediterranean, even though the country to hold the presidency has an obligation to create projects throughout the Union as a whole. Prime Minister Berlusconi has been interested more in Russia’s warmongering dimension rather than peace, ordinary cooperation with people and their social well-being. There is a danger that the special features of the EU’s Northern Dimension will be trampled underfoot by the new Wider Europe – Neighbourhood Policy. Nature dictates different preconditions for life in the north from those further south and those regions need their own distinctive policy. The draft resolution jointly proposed by the political groups is comprehensive and only needs implementing, which is the Commission’s responsibility.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the difficulties of finding a compromise have already been mentioned during the course of this debate. It appears that the final solution is acceptable because it reconciles the need for competition with liberalisation and, most importantly, with the obligation for a universal service, and we know that there will be subsequent stages which will make it possible to assess the situation. I particularly welcomed the fact that the reference to postal services in rural areas was accepted in committee. It was no coincidence that I tabled an amendment which also mentions the problems of mountains and islands. I am making particular reference to mountainous areas, even though they do not always fall within the definition of rural regions, because, observing the development of the postal system in many European countries, the question of mountains is now one of the most difficult matters to resolve. If we were to analyse the data already available to us, we would probably discover that a great deal, hundreds, maybe thousands of post offices have been closed in mountainous areas. Clearly, over and above the evaluations of the economic quality of the system which always have to be carried out, the real risk is that the mountainous areas will become marginalised, and new solutions therefore have to be sought which make it possible to maintain an essential service such as the postal service, enhanced by other services. In my opinion, this will be one of the major issues affecting the development of the European mountainous areas in the coming years.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, High Representative, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say, on behalf of the Group of the , that it is a great honour to receive the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, today. My group had the honour of nominating the Secretary-General for the Sakharov Prize, and I would like to thank the other political groups for having ensured an overwhelming majority in Parliament in order to express a common will to acknowledge the difficult and heroic work of the United Nations and to encourage it to persevere in the noble cause of world peace and stability. My group does not just wish to pay tribute to Sergio Vieira de Mello and the other victims of an heroic struggle, but also to acknowledge the efforts of many United Nations officials and chiefs who are continuing their work, and I would like to mention two symbolic names, those of Mr Blix and Mr El Baradei, who have done important work in favour of peace and the reduction of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Over the last two years we have not just seen terrorist attacks which have led to the deaths of many innocent people, but also an unprecedented assault on the international institutions, in particular the UN. Therefore, Secretary-General, I would like to reaffirm the importance of solidarity and close cooperation between peoples and nations. In this regard, you have given us a lesson today on the importance of migrations, and I would say, on behalf of my group, that we thank you for this brave and committed speech because we are living in a world in which globalisation applies to capital, to services and to products; but ... (Applause) ... is not applied to people. Taking from your speech the elements which need to be carried out in the European Union, I would also like to offer you our cooperation in the work you have begun on the reform of the United Nations, with a view to ensuring that the UN, together with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the International Labour Organisation, can work together. I believe this is a common cause which both the European Union and the United Nations must work on. In summary, Mr President, I would also like to say that we are clearly committed to multilateralism as opposed to unilateralism, to preventive action rather than pre-emptive attacks, and that it must not be said that the United Nations is incapable: Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique, El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Guatemala, Kosovo, Timor, Sierra Leone, Liberia and the Congo demonstrate that the United Nations is necessary and important and is a legitimate and noble cause and that we must support its efforts. (Loud applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in Lisbon, a common horizon was set, establishing structural reforms for the modernisation of our economy, in order to increase growth and employment. However, our Union goes beyond the field of the economy. It is based on fundamental principles, listed in Article 6 of the Treaty, which many of us have seen called into question in one particular Member State. All we democrats should be delighted to see the Union immediately reacting to any apparent threat to the values on which our co-existence is based. In the PPE we have analysed – in my humble opinion, objectively and competently – the political situation in Austria and we have agreed, within our political family, on a system of conditions and of monitoring which we pray will make a positive contribution to the resolution of this crisis. These have been lively months internationally. I will now focus purely on the Middle East. Israel, Syria and the Lebanon are living through intense time in terms of national politics, as has been said this morning in this House. I believe that these circumstances offer a new opportunity for definitive peace in the region. Therefore, we have to demand of our Heads of Government and of the European Commission that they take the responsibility which the circumstances demand of the European Union, by increasing our joint political presence, of course, but also in the economic field, concluding the associations agreements once and for all, and implementing the Barcelona agreements more quickly. I hope that these events will remind us of our moral, historical, political and economic commitments to our Mediterranean neighbours, which must not be passed over in favour of other geographical areas.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if we have understood the President-in-Office of the Council correctly, then this message, that the Council is moving towards Parliament’s position, is an important one. After the events of the last few weeks, I am pleased to hear the message but I lack faith. Which is why we need an exact overview of what this message in fact means. Parliament has taken great pains to move towards the Council’s position over recent weeks. Until the end, any such effort on the part of the Council was minimal. And if there is any now, we must ask, why not a moment earlier because, if the situation really is as we have understood it – and I still have my doubts – then we now have problems with how, technically, we are supposed to ensure that everything goes according to plan. Until that has been clarified, as far as I am concerned, the decision of the Committee on Budgets taken yesterday evening still stands.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the European Union has once again shown its support, in this joint debate on the second rail package, for the liberalisation of the railways in order to promote greater competition in this crisis-ridden sector. In this context, I feel that rapid liberalisation of the rail sector in all the Member States would favour this mode of transport as a credible alternative to rail and road transport, and as a means of combating the explosion in these sectors, which have disastrous effects on the environment and on regional planning. To my mind, this liberalisation can only be understood in the broad sense of greater competition in both the freight and passenger transport sectors, at both national and international levels. This liberalisation will mean that any Community rail transport company will have fair and equal access to infrastructure in all the Member States for commercial ends. As I have already had occasion to emphasise, however, we need to fight against a very widely-held prejudice: liberalising rail transport does not mean that safety standards cannot be stepped up. This rail package actually enables safety regulations to be toughened, in particular by harmonising working times and rest periods for train drivers and other train staff performing safety tasks. Since technology enables extremely high levels of safety, there is no good reason why legislators should be content to pass laws providing less protection for passengers. For instance, installing black boxes on trains is another safety measure that I completely endorse. Since these devices have proved to have clear benefits in the air and road sectors, in lorries and on buses, I cannot conceive of any justification for not applying the same technology on the railways. I insist that safety must have top priority, and would also like to express my support for the establishment of a European Railway Agency, which would permit a higher degree of interoperability and safety of the various trans-European networks. I cannot end this speech without levelling some harsh criticism at the EU’s new priority projects scheme, known as the Quick-Start Programme. With a view to stimulating economic growth in Europe through large-scale projects, the Commission has drawn up a list of 13 initiatives, seven of them linked to rail transport. It is regrettable that the list only benefits transport networks in the centre of the European Union, failing to include the Iberian TGV links between Lisbon and Madrid.

Political group: PPE-DE