GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
It is time to take stock, Mr Aznar. You gave your presidency the motto ‘More Europe’. What happened to that? What happened, apart from the pats on the back you are giving yourself? The fight against terrorism was one of your priorities. You were reminded here that beyond this essential fight, political problems needed to be addressed politically. You prefer decrees to dialogue. In Spain and elsewhere, terrorism thrives when politics turns a blind eye. Enlargement was one of your priorities. As they say in rugby, you kicked the common agricultural policy, finance and aid to future Member States into touch and sent the ball to the Danish Presidency’s end. Lastly, let us consider Seville, a town besieged by protesters in a country paralysed by the general strike. You should have ridden the wave of fear in Europe, the wave of hatred for Le Pen, Haider and Berlusconi. The tension should have been focused on the world’s villains, who deserved to be punished for their crimes. You allowed Mr Chirac to pass for a progressive in return for very little. Mr Chirac! To us, the separatists of the Esquerre Républica de Catalunya, this is what you have achieved: ‘Less Europe’, ‘Bisque Catalunya’, ‘Bisque Europe’.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly I should like to say that this proposal was introduced earlier this year by the Commission under the procedure without debate. Had it not been for the initiative of one of my colleagues, Mr Helmer, in overturning that procedure, this House would not have had the opportunity to discuss it. Let me make it very clear to the House at the outset that, recognising their ultra-peripheral status, I have no problem with special treatment for the Canary Islands, – my goodness, I would quite like it for my own region, but that is not very likely. This was accepted at the time of Spain's accession to the European Union and special tax arrangements were put in place to assist local industries. But those derogations from the rules of the single market were intended to be temporary and to be phased out. Far from phasing out these measures, the Commission's proposal effectively doubles the level of protection for a wide range of goods, impacting especially heavily on spirits and tobacco. The large tourist industry of the Canary Islands is an important outlet for these products. The proposed measures will impact negatively on liquor and cigarette manufacturers in many Member States. By raising consumer prices in the Canaries they may even damage the island's tourist trade. In particular they will damage Gallaghers in my own constituency and Imperial Tobacco in Nottingham, to name but two. Bizarrely, as I understand it, the proposals will protect an American cigarette manufacturer in the Canaries. The rapporteur says that jobs have been lost in cigarette factories in the Canaries, but they have also been lost in cigarette factories across the European Union. With changes in consumption and improvements in productivity, we all have industries in our own regions that suffer from overseas competition, but in the single market we do not raise protectionist taxes. The original intention was to phase out these measures. The Commission's proposal is to double them. I put it to the House that a reasonable compromise is to leave the levels as they were in 2001, and I call on colleagues to support the amendments to this effect and reject the Commission's proposed increases.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank Mr Veltroni. As rapporteur, he has done some very good work, including work of a very cooperative nature, and I should like to thank him very much for that. However, thanks are similarly due to the Commission which has provided an outstanding basis for the discussions between the Committee and Parliament. The audiovisual sector basically faces the task of having to develop in two main fields. Firstly, it is a means of generating future jobs. Secondly, however, it is also of great significance for securing cultural diversity and freedom of speech in Europe. It is therefore important always to keep both perspectives in view. I should like briefly to illustrate this by way of three examples. Firstly, it is necessary to regulate content and methods of transmission differently and independently of each other. We need a form of technology which can respond very quickly and very flexibly to the technological revolution. I would just mention the buzz word ‘Internet’ at this point. However, we not only wish to guarantee people universal access to all networks but also need to ensure that young people are protected and human dignity assured by means of legal regulations which, independently of the method of transmission, safeguard these values that are indispensable to us all. Secondly, consider the level at which decisions are made. Where the issue of technology is concerned, we need increasing cooperation among the Member States at European level. When it comes to issues of content, however, we want to know that, in the first place, the Member States are willing and able to safeguard cultural pluralism and diversity of opinion. Thirdly, television in Europe. We have both commercial and public service broadcasting which both require clear statutory frameworks in order to be able to develop in competition. We therefore say a clear yes to the protocol of the Treaty of Amsterdam on public service broadcasting and to the Member States’ responsibility for commissioning and for securing finance. We are also, however, saying just as clear a yes to the task of developing and promoting commercial television companies in Europe so that they can compete effectively worldwide. That is the crucial precondition for safeguarding European cultural content, with the conditions of future technology in mind.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, maybe it is not useful or politically correct to point out who supported the Taliban at the start, when they were aiming to achieve the power that they now have in Afghanistan. Other Members have already spoken of a million displaced people, a million people mutilated by landmines, thousands of women deprived of their most basic rights, such as the right to education, health, work, or to move around freely: it must be terrible for many of these women, who are accustomed to education, to a secular way of life, to be confined to that area with no freedom. And we do need to take this into account in the European institutions, as well as the fact that drug cultivation is used to buy arms. This morning – and I will shortly conclude, Mr President – a code of conduct was approved on the sale and trafficking of arms. I do not think that this code will be useful unless it is effective in preventing weapons from reaching the hands of people who are committing very serious violations against human rights, as these people are.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I do not think that the report which has been approved by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and submitted for the approval of this plenary sitting merits a positive response because: 1 – It makes requirements for revision beyond those that are laid down in the Treaty of Amsterdam, in such broad and general terms that it is not clear what a new “full” agenda is. Particularly because it omits points for revision that I consider to be essential and that were agreed on in the opinions of other Parliamentary Committees, such as a revision of own resources, a revision of social cohesion, reform of the CAP, the extension of first Pillar competences in terms of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, reform of the legal system etc... 2 – The revision centres on an agenda that essentially only concerns issues of decision-making power and a corresponding new balance between Member States, which will reduce, in the name of fairness, the weight of economically less developed States in favour of the more economically powerful ones, to which it is being attempted to give the mechanisms for strengthening their influence. 3 – Consequently, it accepts, by giving the Commission carte blanche to propose it, a redistribution of the weighting that each State holds in the wake of what can already be seen in the administrative and operational organisation of the Community executive, which threatens the historical and constituent principle of the European project which has always successfully stood firm on there not being proportionality between population and the weighting of votes. 4 – Consistent with the positions that I have always maintained in Parliament, regarding a revision of Maastricht and Amsterdam, with the aim of keeping sacrosanct the founding historical balance between large and small countries, I cannot approve this resolution which will open up a “Pandora’s box” for a Treaty that accepts as fair the supremacy of some States over others in breach of the principle of the equality of all European citizens. That is why I voted against it!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted in favour of the document on electronic publishing, which I read with great interest, considering the reasons I could give for voting for the motion. I remembered, Mr President, that sometimes, of an evening, when my wife and I go to bed, I read her a book, and she, hearing me read, falls asleep: obviously listening to my voice has this interesting and relaxing effect. So this leads me to ask: “Why don't we introduce an electronic record which can read books for those who have poor sight, those who cannot read? With this reading system they too could learn, they too could read, and we would be showing solidarity with those who unfortunately have a disability, for example visual problems, who would enjoy listening to and reading many different stories.”

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, Mr President, I think that Europe must state three main principles in this Millennium Round. The first is that the aim of this round must be to reduce inequalities in development, unlike what has happened after previous rounds. Today, the African continent has a less than 3% share of world trade. The rules of the multilateral trade system must take account of the differences in countries’ situations, resources and levels of development. Free trade which does not take any other factors into account just makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker. This is why we would not be able to accept a challenge to the principles of our cooperation with the countries of the south, particularly with ACP countries, and of course in this context I am thinking of the Lomé Convention. I think, on the contrary, that we should restate the commitments that we made at the ACP-EU Joint Assembly which was held a few weeks ago. Europe must go to Seattle with a concept of globalisation that is opposed to that of a unilateral world dominated by just one power. Europe must, on the contrary, promote a concept based on a multipolar world and encourage the establishment of economically and politically integrated regional groups, as we have ourselves been trying to do for the last forty years. How can we refuse others what we granted ourselves after the war, to reconstruct our industry, agriculture and economy? Secondly, we must confine the WTO, strictly limit its role and keep isolated from the WTO’s sphere of competence those sectors which jeopardise society’s very identity and which must continue to remain the sovereignty of the citizens and of their elected institutions. Education, health, public and social services, public transport and culture are all examples of sectors which cannot be brought into trade negotiations and cannot be dealt with by an international trade court. We must refuse to join the race to make every sector subject to the market. Thirdly, we must defend the principle of a hierarchy of norms. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the conventions of the International Labour Organisation, and those on the environment are, by their very nature, superior to the standards that govern trade. We should not condemn a State on the grounds that it is applying the precautionary principle, that it is protecting its environment or that it is refusing imports which are proven to have been produced by child labour. On the contrary, we must be able to bring an appeal against a decision by the WTO before the International Labour Organisation or before the competent bodies at the United Nations. On the eve of this new round, we are struck by the way society at large and international public opinion have forced their way into the debate. I think that this is an excellent development, because it is the best guarantee that it will not be possible to drop these issues during these negotiations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not know whether to comment on the hysterical remarks by some Members of the House, or simply to ignore them. There have been calls for some Western leaders to be brought before the International Criminal Court. Such statements are sectarian, irresponsible and deny themselves all legitimacy inasmuch as they fail to call for the same treatment to be meted out to Saddam Hussein although he alone is responsible for this crisis. No single political group or Member of this House has a monopoly over the cause of peace. I can understand that this cause generates strong emotions. There are two possible responses to the impotence demonstrated by the European Union. One such response involves behaving in an insulting and dismissive manner, casting blame on each other and perverting the noble cause of peace for particular national interests. A Member of this House did so referring to the situation in the Basque country. He failed to ascribe any responsibility for that situation to those who attack freedoms in the area on a daily basis or to those who have been in government there for over 20 years. The alternative response involves the responsible approach adopted by the Greek Presidency, making a virtue out of a necessity. The Presidency endeavoured to learn the lessons of this crisis and take a long hard look at the future. The European Union has actually become an economic power. It is now a commercial, financial and industrial power. Unfortunately, however, it does not make its weight felt as it should in the international context. Consequently there is currently no alternative to the transatlantic axis, Mr President, at least regarding security and defence. This is probably due to our own shortcomings. Each and every one of us is to blame for the situation. Mr President, I therefore wish to condemn the cynicism and hypocrisy of many Members of this House. They talk until they are blue in the face about the need for a common security and defence policy. When they go back in their constituencies, however, they are incapable of asking their voters to endow that same security and defence policy with the necessary resources. They have failed to understand that a united Europe can be strong whereas a divided Europe is bound to be weak. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, my friend and colleague Carlos Bautista Ojeda has made a brief reference to this, but I would like to expand on one of the issues which he has raised: as you know, in the Spanish State users of two-wheeled vehicles have real difficulties finding companies who want to insure mopeds, motorcycles etc. Their only answer – in some cases – is to turn to the insurance compensation consortium. I do not know whether anything can be done in this regard, on the initiative of the Commission, because this is a great demand from the motorcycling sector: that there may really be insurance cover which is accessible and proportionate to the use, enjoyment and cost of motorcycles and two-wheeled vehicles in general.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too want to join in the delight that has been expressed today in many quarters concerning the constructive way in which the budgetary negotiations have proceeded. To outsiders, the effusive way in which we are praising each other may appear odd, but the mutual trust, openness and integrity that has characterised the budgetary negotiations this year inspires confidence that shortening and simplifying the budgetary process along the lines being worked on in the Convention is something that can be done easily and that we can continue the work on ensuring that the budget appears as a political document with clear political priorities. This process will in any case be clearer by next year when we change over to activity-based budgeting and so hopefully remove something of the mystique surrounding the language used in the budget. It will be easier for all of us to see the economic and political priorities in the budget. Good results were achieved in this year’s budget, and I want firstly to point out that, for 2003, we found the money to prepare for enlargement to include ten countries in 2004. Without exceeding the agreed financial framework, EU legislation must be translated into the languages of the new Member States, and staff from the new countries must be appointed. I think that Parliament has made its contribution to that process. Secondly, we found the money for rebuilding Afghanistan and, thirdly, we were given clear pledges by the Council of better cooperation and scrutiny when it came to the funding of the common foreign and security policy. It is important, indeed it is in everyone’s interest, that there should be no recesses of the budget outside parliamentary control.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the directive we are about to vote on can and must be clearly perceived as a turning point by the European citizens. Seveso, the disasters, with which we are sadly, all familiar, in the Natural Park of Doñana and the sinking of the oil tanker, the Prestige, and, last but not least, the confirmation of the devastating future health implications of the environmental degradation caused by the Priolo chemical plant, are all incidents which call for the establishment of a European system of civil liability for environmental damage. We need to send out a strong political signal, which will help, not least, to stop some regressive tendencies which are emerging here and there. As Mrs Wallström, for example, is quite aware, the Italian Government is about to undertake a revision of the penal code, planning, inter alia, to remove the penalties for crimes against the environment. Therefore, there is all the more need for a system rigorously applying the polluter pays principle and thus creating powerful incentives for preventing and avoiding the repetition of such situations in the future. Indeed, the ultimate goal is prevention, not the provision of compensation for damage. To this end, we in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy have endeavoured to achieve the removal of some of the dangerous exemptions which allow wide-ranging, general means of protection and which, in actual fact, turn the environmental authorisations into a sort of licence to pollute, with the serious danger that the effectiveness of the proposed legislative system will be nullified. We have tried to ensure that it is the operator responsible, not the taxpayer, who bears the costs of remedying the environmental damage. It is, moreover, necessary for all the economic activities which could result in environmental damage to be taken into consideration and provided for in the liability system. This system should lay down, as a general rule, specific liability for environmental damage, irrespective of whether the activity causing the damage is deemed to be dangerous or not. This directive is vitally important. Now long-awaited, it will be a fundamental element of European environmental legislation, provided, however, that the changes which we have worked on with the 16 compromise amendments to reinforce the text are adopted. I strongly urge you to adopt the compromise amendments, which repropose the substance of the text that was adopted in the Committee on the Environment and then nullified by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market; if the amendments are not adopted, as Mrs Gebhardt has already said, particularly if Amendments Nos 99, 103 and 107 are not adopted, our group will not be able to vote for the Manders report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wanted to thank you for what you said about the occasion of 8 March and I believe that – as Mrs Gröner mentioned – we are all concerned about how important the presence of women will be in the next Parliament and about how difficult it will be to keep the presence of women at an acceptable level. This is why I would like to suggest to you, Mr President, that the Parliament services carry out a very simple study into what women have achieved in parliamentary work during this term. I am sure that, even though women are still a minority in this Parliament, they have given a much greater contribution to the work of Parliament than their percentage would suggest. Therefore, persuading women to vote for women by starting with the work that women have carried out could be a very convincing argument. I therefore urge you to make your services carry out a study that puts together attendance, the number of reports and what has been done in Parliament: it will become clear that women are doing much more work than their percentage of representation would suggest. I believe that this argument is much more convincing than so many others in calling for a greater presence of women in the next Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, Commissioner Fischler, it is apparent yet again from today's discussion that some people are keen to feather their nests from the agricultural budget. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development – and I myself – do not believe that too much money is flowing into agriculture and Europe's rural regions. The money may not be flowing into the right channels, but that is why there is a need for reform. We therefore oppose linear cuts because we believe that what is required are not linear cuts but qualified measures. Of course, a key element in this context is to dispense with export subsidies in a region which is one of the largest importers in the world. We would like to see the option of a transfer from the first to the second pillar. To this end, it is essential that we have co-decision rights in respect of the obligatory expenditure as well. That is an urgent requirement. We have specifically adopted amendments which go beyond the Institutional Agreement because we want to force a new agreement and debate. Mr Fischler, these needs are also identified in your reform proposals. The financial perspective must be amended. We would therefore like to support this. We will undoubtedly get bogged down in discussions again later, but we think this is acceptable in principle. With regard to the transfer to the second pillar, let me point out again that we have re-introduced our INPART programme. The name has been changed. We are now calling it LEAR-EAST, since we have progressed further along the road to enlargement. However, we still endorse the concept of establishing a bottom-up programme for the new Member States as well. Finally, we would like genetic resources to be transferred to the non-obligatory part. You are familiar with the issues. I think that the Commission will go along with this. We simply have to try and find sufficient funds here.

Political group: Verts-ALE