GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr De Croo, after debating for 25 years, we are gathered here once again to discuss chocolate, such a polemical debate for such a sweet subject. We are talking about harmonisation, the harmonisation of tastes, of habits and, almost, of cultures. In short, chocolate is a dividing factor and the divisions are neither ideological nor even national, whatever some parties might think. What makes defending cocoa-producing countries an ideological matter, I ask you? It is an ethical matter. In terms of the social aspect, we are talking about millions of families who make their living from cocoa production. We have made formal commitments to them. So what is the reason for this time limit? Sixty-six months to carry out a study of the impact of this directive, such a time period is enough to cause irreparable damage to the export structures of these countries. The potential impact must be investigated in advance, that is clear. Moreover, if we must have harmonisation, for a consumer that is ever more demanding about the quality of what he eats and who, incidentally, has asked for nothing and has absolutely nothing to gain in this matter, in my view, the absolute minimum would be to limit the quality label or any other label of excellence to 100% cacao chocolate, real chocolate. Any other sort of harmonisation would mean lowering standards and that is not the sort of Europe that the consumer wants.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, with regard to the various initiatives which we are analysing this afternoon, I would like to concentrate strictly on one of them, that is, the URBAN programme. It is a fact that we are debating this programme today because the European Parliament insisted that this initiative should be maintained. The Commission proposed removing it and other initiatives, but Parliament’s proposal and the sensitivity of the Commission itself at the time led to the URBAN initiative being retained. I believe that we should be pleased about this. But what were the Commission’s arguments, from Commissioner Monika Wulf-Mathies and Director-General Eneko Landaburu in particular, for eliminating the URBAN programme? Its argument was one of priority. The urban question is so important that we cannot tighten our belts and undervalue it with a programme which has such a small budget. Today the programme is in place and therefore I believe we have achieved something important, that distinguishing mark of the European Union called the URBAN programme. However, I would like to address Commissioner Barnier and support the argument of Commissioner Wulf-Mathies and the Director-General, because I think they were absolutely right. The urban dimension must be incorporated much more deeply in all the structural funds. The amount of budget required by our cities – where 80% of the European population live and which increasingly represent both the best and the worst of what we have in Europe, I believe, clearly indicates that the European dimension should be taken into account and that this URBAN programme should not be used as an excuse not to analyse in detail, not to prioritise and, therefore, not to introduce an infinitely greater budgetary contribution into programmes which affect the cities, by means of European funds. Therefore, I do not believe I need to restate the number of factors which demand this investment in urban areas, factors which are on the agenda, and I would like to say to the Commissioner that we hope he will be sensitive in this respect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this report on the Commission communication to prepare the meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers in Valencia on 22 and 23 April is about furthering Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, the aim of which, in our view, is to impose the economic and political terms of the European Union on the other countries in the Mediterranean, using economic means and political blackmail. Of course we have the usual pronouncements about peace and democracy. Conditions on the ground, however, as experienced in Cyprus, where 37% of the island is still occupied, or by the long-suffering people of Palestine, subject to a criminal all-out attack by Israel, unfortunately not just tolerated, but still being funded and armed by the European Union, are somewhat different. For example, the adoption of the Euro-Mediterranean charter on peace and stability has been postponed because Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is not being used to serve the peace process in the Middle East, and we have the European Union to blame for that. There can be no doubt that the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation which we are constantly hearing about is not intended to contribute to the viable development of third Mediterranean countries and the prosperity of their people, let alone democracy and peace in the Mediterranean; its purpose is to promote the interests of the European Union's multinationals. That is why we shall continue to fight against this policy and for a radically different policy to make the Mediterranean an area of peace, mutual benefit and equitable collaboration and coexistence for its people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I abstained. I welcome the strong questions raised in the report and I congratulate my colleague Mr Oostlander on the quality of his work. In Turkey. fundamental rights and individual freedoms do not comply with the requirements of the European Union. There is still a great deal of work to be done in order for the country to become truly democratic. It is equally important for Turkey to face its history, particularly by publicly acknowledging the genocide suffered by the Armenians. I abstained on this report because it does not raise the issue of Europe’s borders and does not propose an alternative to Turkey’s membership, the consequences of which are not dealt with. In opposing this membership, I am not rejecting Turkey. On the contrary, I propose creating an area of preferential relations, which would help it in its economic and social development and would support the steps taken to create a stable democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your answer. I was expecting you to give the same answer as the one you gave I would, however, like to point out to you that support for a Tobin-type tax is increasing. This support is coming from organisations of economists, naturally, but also from political institutions, as a result of the fact that certain positions have been taken up in the Finnish and Canadian parliaments, and again in Argentina, quite recently, even in Great Britain, and here, in the European Parliament. It is said that this type of tax could only be effective if it were chosen and implemented by several countries or areas of the world. This is often the argument used against it. It is certainly true but a first step in that direction is absolutely necessary in order to clamp down on financial speculation which is sweeping the planet, whereas new resources are urgently needed for investments to help people, particularly in developing countries. We must be aware, and you know this, that USD 1 500 billion pass through the stock exchange every day and half of these transactions are made on the European stock markets. There is no doubt that if the European Union decided to take this step, the impact would be considerable. Do you not think, therefore, that the Commission could at least carry out a feasibility study?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are all aware that it was following the sinking of the Prestige tanker, and the subsequent lack of coordination between the actions of the Member States, that the Commission decided to table the amendments to the regulation that established the European Maritime Safety Agency. The wreck – and the human, environmental and economic tragedy that it caused in the areas affected, particularly in Galicia – demonstrated the need for intervention to be more effective and for actions between the Member States to be better coordinated. There is, however, no justification whatsoever for extending the jurisdiction of the agency to areas that are clearly the responsibility of the Member States, as this would entail doubling costs and removing responsibility from Member States. This would, in turn, raise questions of sovereignty, leading to conflicts of competences. The crucial question is to ascertain how far the jurisdiction of this agency can and should be extended. I must say that I am delighted the agency is to be set up in Portugal; I hope that this takes place as soon as possible and it would be nice if the Commissioner could shed some light on the timescale for us. The competences I have referred to must not be allowed to undermine the subsidiarity principle. The rapporteur suggests that the agency’s work in pollution response should be restricted to technical and scientific support and should not replace the Member States’ own response mechanisms; it should provide additional resources when these have been requested by the government under the authority of which cleaning up operations will be conducted. I share this opinion, in view of the fact that no State is capable of dealing with large-scale oil spills on its own. In such circumstances, the agency may provide support, but should not replace Member States. The agency cannot and must not intervene to combat terrorist attacks; the agency will be entrusted with the competence of monitoring the efficiency of Member States’ ships and port facility security. Its establishment may contribute towards strengthening maritime safety, in conjunction with national authorities and the support of the various Member States, acting as an additional technical and scientific resource and not as a supranational body that monitors security or even fisheries activities.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Communist Party of Greece is opposed to the introduction of a European constitution because it will strengthen the imperialist ΕU at the expense of the peoples and for the benefit of the exploiters. In addition, the text of the Convention, which was set up and operated utterly anti-democratically by muzzling every voice on the left, does not crystallise the democratic rights won by the people. On the contrary, it diminishes them. The declaration of faith in an exceptionally competitive social (!) market economy also sets capitalism on a constitutional basis. The abolition of the revolving presidency, the composition of the Commission, the cutback in unanimous decision-making and the definition of the qualified majority show that this is about redistributing power for the benefit of the strong and handing over more national sovereignty to the imperialist, Euro-unifying centre. Militarisation is being dangerously deepened within the framework of the common defence policy which, of course, respects the obligations which derive from the North Atlantic Treaty. Terrorism is being used as a pretext for creating preconditions for new military interventions against the peoples of the whole world (without forgetting the 'enemy within') and a special role is being reserved for Member States with high military capabilities. It is no coincidence that the only minister is for foreign affairs. We are convinced that the peoples will not be deceived. Opposition to capitalism is growing, both inside and outside the ΕU. The grass-roots fight will strengthen as the anti-grass roots policy intensifies and will pull down the edifice being so carefully erected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I regret that two amendments, which were very important in terms of sending a political message firstly to the textiles sector, which is very concerned about the challenges it has to face in 2005, and secondly, to industry in general, which also has great concerns in view of the entry of China into the WTO, have not been able to be adopted as a result of the lack of a qualified majority. They could have served, as I have said, as a political message to the sectors, which are very worried. I believe that all those who have voted against them have shown a lack of coherence. At the same time, I would also like to explain that I have voted in favour of an increase in the budget in relation to the reconstruction of Iraq, although I was at the time and continue to be totally against the war, because I believe that we cannot continue to punish the Iraqi people, particularly in view of the serious insufficiencies in basic services for the population which already existed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I pick up on a point that Konrad Schwaiger has just made. I too believe – and I am speaking here on behalf of my group – that there is a need to redefine the obligations of the Council in terms of its accountability. We all know, of course, that the Council acted correctly in the purely formal sense – this was the honourable Member’s line of argument too – and that the Council is not under any formal obligation to consult Parliament. However, I do not believe we are talking about formal procedures here, but rather about proper substantive political cooperation. As far as proper cooperation is concerned, the Council is still falling far short of its duty to Parliament. My wish for the future is that the Council, instead of constantly invoking the formal position, will find an interinstitutional procedure that enables us to engage in some decent cooperation in future in the field of trade policy. What you have seen this time will be seen more often in the future. But let us not be under any illusions: trade policy is becoming an ever wider field, and many issues go beyond trade policy and into the domain of international politics. These numerous trade disputes with the United States are a prime example. If you want Parliament to stand by you – and Parliament is with the Commission on the substantive issue, as Konrad Schwaiger said – you must ensure that we can cooperate properly on matters of substance. You must look on us as an adult partner, even if the Treaty does not yet formally recognise our adulthood. I believe that the institutions have always found ways and means of cooperating in the past. I wish the Council would do likewise and find a new procedure. It may be that a discussion or briefing session would be held after each meeting of the special committee referred to in Article 133(3). Or, if the Council initiates official procedures, it could come to the parliamentary committee and explain the situation. I believe these would be ways of cooperating, and they would remove much of what I believe to be utterly unnecessary bitterness from the present debate. We largely agree on the substance of this issue. I also hope that many of the honourable Members who signed the letter have come to see that this was not the right course of action. May I therefore urge the Council most earnestly to venture forward, perhaps even today, and make the case for a new form of cooperation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the absence of Mr Fischler, which is justified, as the chair of the Committee on Fisheries made clear earlier, prevents me from going into too much detail. However, I would like to convey a few brief messages to the Commission, which is worthily represented today by Commissioner Busquin. The first message is the Commission’s inability to renew the most important fisheries agreement that the European Union had. I believe that this fact should be noted and made clear and doubts raised as to whether the Commission is capable of negotiating international agreements, especially having heard President Prodi request an international remit for the Commission. Secondly, I am concerned about Mr Busquin’s comment regarding support for developing the fishing capacity of Morocco. We are talking about a territory that does not belong to Morocco, but that is being administrated by Morocco. If we help Morocco to over-exploit this territory, which is awaiting a UN-supervised referendum, if we develop a Moroccan fishing fleet to exploit the fish in this territory, what will happen when this territory becomes self-governing and what will we do with the Moroccan fleet? Thirdly, since the fisheries agreement came to an end, Community and non-Community fleets that are not subject to the control of either the Commission or the Member States have continued to exploit the Saharan fishing grounds, in particular a substantial Dutch fleet. What measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent at least the Community fleets from continuing to over-exploit these resources? Fourthly, as Mrs Miguélez emphasised, when the previous fisheries agreements were signed, the European Union made significant concessions to Morocco on all points. Last year, Morocco withdrew from the negotiating table and, like a good player who has won, ended up with all the cards and did not forfeit a single concession. Is the European Union going to continue making concessions, if Morocco does not show the slightest desire to relieve the situation? And finally, the Commissioner has spoken of the Commission’s measures to help the fisheries sector directly affected. But the fisheries sector is only part of the activity generated by fishing. At the moment, various Spanish regions, the Canaries, Andalusia and Galicia, and some Portuguese regions, are directly affected by the cessation of fishing activities. This means the end of shore-based activities, boat repairs, the provisioning of vessels, canning factories and oil factories, which is to say that a whole economic sector is currently paralysed as a result of this. My question to the Commission is this: if an agreement is not reached with Morocco, or if this agreement is concluded under the terms indicated by the Commission, an agreement that stimulates Moroccan production, is the Commission planning to adopt structural measures to compensate for the losses that will occur in the regions affected.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the report by my colleague, Mr Florenz, is one of the most important achievements this parliamentary term from Parliament’s point of view. Firstly, producers are now to be made responsible for the complete life cycles of the equipment they sell. The unambiguous application of individual producer liability is something that I, as the person who originally proposed the amendment, am especially glad about. This is precisely the way we can ensure that product design takes account of the environment and therefore the directive’s whole viability. If producers know they are the ones that have to pay when equipment reaches the end of its life cycle, they will minimise costs beforehand and ensure that as little waste as possible is created and that that small amount has maximum potential for recycling. Parliament’s wish to prevent anyone from getting a ‘free ride’ has also been taken into consideration in a fair way, inter alia, by demanding that producers should provide a guarantee to cover costs when products are released for sale. Secondly, we have to mention our rapporteur’s splendid solution regarding the obligation to recycle, something that has been fully achieved, but regarding which there has to be evidence of a rate of four kilograms of waste per inhabitant a year. Thus, not a gram of waste is to remain without someone taking responsibility for it, although for various practical reasons – and this was the compromise that was finally reached during conciliation – the obligation regarding evidence itself is in respect of just 4 kilograms. The entire chain, therefore – producers, importers, dealers, consumers, organisers of waste disposal and recycling, and the authorities – will each be in a responsible position, but the balance of responsibility among them that has been found is excellent. Furthermore, market mechanisms have been used just as they should: there will be positive incentives to encourage more ecological behaviour. Unfortunately, it has to be said that the position taken by the Council right up to the last moment to solve the question of costs would not have worked in this way and it would not have had such an ecological impact, although it might have been tempting for Member States in terms of taxation. I hope that the Member States also find a fair solution regarding how collection facilities are organised. In so far as it is possible, it will be the responsibility of the local authorities, and the producer’s liability for costs starts at the collection point. I believe that we have found an excellent model in the WEEE Directive, which, hopefully soon, we will be able to apply to many other product groups. When the Commission is drafting proposals on these may it be encouraged by the unanimous support we have had for the proposal now before us from environmental and consumer organisations, as well as the industry itself.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Buitenweg for this report and for her commonsensical approach to the issue she has had to deal with. We all know that the overwhelming majority of both petty and organised crime is drug-related. Europe's society cannot continue to tolerate that and to pursue policies that are clearly failing. If anybody imagines that our drug policies are working, then they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. People are dying daily because they are caught up in a drug underworld which is making millions from their misery. I have visited housing estates where grandmothers are rearing grandchildren because the parents have died, not from an overdose of cannabis or even of heroin, but because they used dirty needles to inject themselves with heroin or took impure heroin. We cannot continue to allow our children to be destroyed in this way by the drug underworld. This morning in the Irish newspapers there was yet another report of a killing as a result of feuds between drug gangs – the fifth in Ireland alone in the last year. When was the last time a pharmacist shot another pharmacist to control the drugs market in his area? As the drugs market in his area is legal, there is no need for him to go chasing a share of the market illegally. We need to review the UN Conventions. A strong call should go from this Parliament tomorrow that the Conventions need to be reviewed and that we need to get serious about how we are handling the drug issue. We need to look in a serious way at the decriminalisation of cannabis, and to get serious about serious drugs.

Political group: PSE
The controversy surrounding the conciliation process for this proposal for a directive, clearly visible in the outcome of Parliament’s vote – it was rejected, since the vote was tied – demonstrated that two ideas with various practical differences were involved in the process of harmonising legislation on takeover bids. Although some slight progress was made during the conciliation process on protecting shareholders who do not have control of the company and on adopting some regulations on making the information of workers mandatory, the situation still fails to safeguard all aspects of workers’ and minority shareholders’ ability to take action. Lastly, although the position arising from conciliation might be of benefit to Portugal, given that Portuguese companies are a potential target and an easy one for cross-border takeovers, there are other, more appropriate ways of protecting national interests. Hence our abstention from voting.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my fellow Portuguese Members on the situation in Timor and to call on the Commission, the Council and the President of the European Parliament to do everything in their power to make Indonesia respect the resolutions which have been adopted on this subject and to respect the commitments it has made to defend the people of East Timor and the refugees in West Timor. I also wish to express my gratitude to this House for the stance it has adopted in defending the people of East Timor. ***

Political group: GUE-NGL