GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr Bourlanges, the proposal you put forward is, shall we say, reasonable. It makes it possible to release EUR 115 million to finance Kosovo, while waiting for a realistic evaluation of requirements, covered, if necessary, by the vote on a SAB next spring, and this is no bad thing. We have also had to effect savings of EUR 150 million, i.e. further budget cuts to the lines of heading 4 in order to finance new priorities: Timor, Turkey and the Fisheries Agreement with Morocco, which are not in the exclusive domain of external action of the Union, but which we have accepted. It must be pointed out that these are heavy sacrifices, especially since this proposal envisages taking EUR 35 million out of ECHO appropriations, a deduction which is presented as a loan, one whose repayment seems highly uncertain. Nonetheless we shall be fighting for that. So, of course I support your proposal but, as you will understand, I support it without enthusiasm. I simply wish to express, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, my concern regarding this budget 2000 which, if the financial perspectives are not reviewed, places the burden of all the sacrifices on the poorest countries. We join forces, however, with the position of the Committee on Budgets and I wish my fellow Members on that committee good luck in the forthcoming three-way dialogue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to address the major risk I think the Council meeting in Copenhagen may comprise in terms of the EU as a peace project. All of us here are talking about EU unification. We are all talking about the historic decision in Copenhagen. Could the EU as a peace project be destroyed in Copenhagen, however? I am sure that many members will feel that this question is not relevant, but I think it is. The EU has been incredibly successful in bringing people and states closer together in the European Union. We now have, however, a candidate country which is first in line to become a member of the European Union, namely Cyprus. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, Nicosia has been Europe’s divided capital. Following the reunification of Germany, it is Cyprus which is the divided country in Europe. The European Parliament has clearly stated that it would like to see the Turkish occupying forces withdrawn from northern Cyprus. In this situation, it is being discussed at a very high level in the Council whether Turkey should be given a date for a meeting where a new date for membership negotiations for this country would be set. I therefore turn particularly to the Danish Presidency and ask how will the public, how will the Cypriots and how will all of us together view this situation in which a country such as Turkey is to be given a date for starting membership negotiations while there are still 30 000 Turkish soldiers in northern Cyprus? Is this the EU as a peace project? I would really like to dwell on this subject and wonder whether we can imagine a country negotiating with the European Union while at the same time unquestionably occupying 37% of another Member State. This must be investigated in Copenhagen. If it is conceivable that the EU, as a peace project, should permit Turkey to start negotiations without the Cyprus conflict being resolved, this means that a Member State can be occupied by a country seeking membership of the Union and actually negotiating with the Commission. I would like to see this question investigated. Let us not be blinded by the charm offensive on the part of Turkey. Let us look at the hard facts which say that one country, Cyprus, is on its way into the Union and another country which occupies 37% of that country wants to start negotiations. Is this reasonable? Is this the EU as a peace project?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Commission has chosen an inopportune time to put before us a complex and completely superfluous proposal for special rules applicable to the taxation of diesel fuel. Over and above that, it seeks to completely harmonise duties on diesel for commercial purposes by 2010, which would end up amounting, for most Member States, to a tax increase and therefore an increase in the price of diesel. It is, moreover, proposed – without considering the devastating effects on diesel technology – to raise the tax rate on diesel to the level of that on unleaded petrol. As our rapporteur has already described, that is completely absurd. Faced with the Commission’s regrettably uncompromising attitude towards the amendments proposed in a spirit of goodwill by our rapporteur Mrs Kauppi, the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, of whom I am one, voted by a massive majority – of twenty-three votes and two abstentions – to reject the Commission proposal in its entirety, and it did so for the many good reasons to which reference has already been made. The result of the Commission proposal would be a complicated system of rebates, one that would be bureaucratic, expensive and practically unworkable. It would leave us wide open to further tax fraud, with which we are already familiar in the context of VAT, and I personally agree with what our rapporteur has already said, namely that healthy fiscal competition is desirable and helpful in terms of stimulating economic growth; I certainly do not believe that it distorts competition in the internal market. What is the point of imposing even higher taxes on our businesses at a time when the economic environment has for some years been characterised by stagnation and unemployment? Such a thing is absurd, and I hope that the Commission will listen to our rapporteur and will put before us a complete and properly thought-out package to coordinate, among other things, the tax treatment of fuel and charges for the use of infrastructures.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on a point of order. I was in the Members' Bar before we started voting. I saw a piece of baggage on a chair. For approximately 15 minutes nobody came for it. A man approached and I asked him whether it was his bag. I told him that, in view of the security situation, it was advisable to stay with one's baggage and that, in addition, to be in the Members' Bar you had to be invited by a Member. He was extremely arrogant and annoyed. He took his bag and marched away. He said that he knew Mrs Muscardini. She then arrived in the bar; I asked her that if she knew the gentlemen, and said that due to the security problems, I had informed him politely of the situation. I should like to say to this House that we as Members of this Parliament also have a responsibility. We have been asking for security measures to be stepped up and we all, therefore, must take responsibility for the people we bring here or allow here in our name. I would just ask you, Madam President, to remind the House of our responsibilities for future security.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in July with my colleagues Mr Galeote, Mr Laschet and Mr Morillon I had the opportunity to visit the Middle East. We had conversations with Foreign Minister Peres and Chairman Arafat and other very senior people there. It was made clear to us that the Mitchell proposals are still accepted by both sides. The problem is how to put them into effect. This cannot begin until there is a cessation of terrorism and only yesterday there was another suicide bomb attack in Jerusalem. The Europeans should cease worrying about having a role. They have one. The question is whether they will exercise it in a balanced and useful way. The United States and the Europeans must work in harmony and not allow themselves to be played off one against the other. In the past the European Union has been seen merely as a supporter of the Palestinians. It was an institution looking for a role. Now Mr Solana is winning the confidence of the Israelis as well by a more balanced and realistic approach without being too prescriptive. I am reassured by the Presidency remarks this morning on the need for equi-distance. On the Palestinian side, the danger is that intransigence will be fuelled by events such as the UN racism conference in South Africa, through the influence of radical Arab forces in the region and by the breakdown of liaison between Israeli and Palestinian security agencies. Instead of suppressing Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other extremist elements, the Palestinian agencies are now too often in bed with the extremists. I fully accept Mr Patten's analysis that further impoverishment of the Palestinians will not discourage extremism but I have no doubt that the European Union should use its financial leverage with the Palestinians to greater political effect. We must make it clear that continued funding requires the Palestinians to bear down with greater effect and greater consistency on the extremists. We need to take care also over this question of international monitors. The precedents are not good. The most likely form of increased international presence on the ground is a resuscitation of the liaison between the Israeli and Palestinian security services reinforced by American and European elements. This might not catch the headlines but through removal of misunderstanding and more effective action against extremists, it may actually help create some of the conditions for peace.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, now that the Berlin Wall has gone, the walls around Europe must also be razed to the ground. The overprotection of our markets is at the expense of the poor, and particularly the poorest, countries. That is why my group too applauds the ‘Everything but Arms’ initiative. However, free market access will not automatically lead to a higher level of exports from the least developed countries. For that to happen, supply, above all, will need to become better, more diverse and more competitive. Also, exports should not be at the expense of the local market. The current initiative will not be able to substantially improve the economic situation in the least developed countries. Indeed, what does free access mean without the means or the expertise to raise industry to Western standards? What does this fine initiative mean if it does not apply to sugar, bananas and rice for the time being? Precisely those products which many countries can offer competitively. Europe must help the least developed countries to cope with globalisation. For that reason, all walls will need to be taken down.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that we are discussing the follow-up measures to the 1997 budgetary discharge at the beginning of the year 2001, is, to my mind, rather anachronistic in procedural terms, given that the 1998 discharge procedure was concluded more than six months ago and the parliamentary committee responsible is already working on the discharge for 1999. A modern, efficient administration should respond forthwith to Parliament’s criticism and recommendations for improvement, particularly when misdemeanours need to be dealt with. Turning now to matters of content, despite some welcome progress, the fact remains that key demands lodged by Parliament have not been fulfilled and are therefore to be carried over into the discharge procedure for subsequent years, which means that the clear delimitation we desire will become more blurred. There are two points in particular I would like to highlight. I am at a loss as to why the Commission has, as yet, failed to take steps to set up a chamber for budgetary discipline at the Court of Auditors or the Court of Justice, and so guarantee the effective application of the provisions of the Financial Regulation concerning the financial liability of officials for damage they cause. How many times do we have to ask, urge, beseech – and I do not know what else – the Commission to get round to doing something at long last? Surely this is a reasonable demand? The same goes for our demand that Parliament, as a discharge authority, should be given at least the same amount of access to the Commission as the Court of Auditors. After all, the duty to provide information is clearly Treaty-based, i.e. it derives from Article 276 of the Treaty of Rome. Incidentally, it also seems to me that the advisory office, which was mentioned earlier, would be surplus to requirements, and I do not intend to go into this matter any further at the present time since previous speakers have already taken care of it. However, both demands are reflected in our amendments and I consider them indisputable. I would appreciate your support in this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner and the few honourable Members who have found their way here, I must, of course, start by congratulating the rapporteurs on their work and excellent cooperation, especially the rapporteur who is here in the House. The previous speaker spoke of a sort of Marshall plan for this region and rightly so, I think. It is the prerogative of those handing out money to stipulate the political objectives and the Commissioner has done so on several occasions. Nonetheless, I should like briefly to outline them once again today on behalf of my group. First, we still have a situation in this region, more's the pity, in which human rights and minority rights are not properly respected. That is now a fact. Our first objective, therefore, must be to help where we can and where we see that there is the will to take better account of minority and human rights in the future. Secondly, international agreements are being challenged in this region over and over again, including recently the Dayton agreement. If I think back to the election campaign in Bosnia-Herzegovina, one of the saddest side-effects of the election process was that leading politicians distanced themselves from Dayton, not in the sense of saying they wanted to go further and wanted more stability, but in the sense of destabilisation. Here we must say an unequivocal ‘no’. Respect for international agreements – including in connection with Dayton – obviously includes cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. We must act decisively – albeit with a certain degree of tolerance – both towards Kostunica, whom we shall be receiving here tomorrow, and the new Yugoslav authorities. There are a few positive signs, but certainly not enough. Thirdly, there must be no unilateral changes to borders. That applies to both Montenegro and Kosovo. Here too, we must be clear and unequivocal. We must give the new Yugoslavia a chance. I hope it will grab that chance. I am not excluding border changes, but I am quite definitely excluding unilateral border changes, whichever side makes them. Any such changes must be set out in an agreement. Fourthly, and most importantly for us, new borders are being erected but they are no obstacle to the activities of criminal organisations, which know no borders. We must combat illegal cross-border activities, be they in connection with the drug trade, cross-border cooperation or trafficking in human beings. Borders are there to be dismantled, but not by criminals and, unfortunately, they are more active here than in other regions. These are the objectives we need to achieve with the funds and instruments which we are now creating. I think that the Commission and Council are also keen for us to work consistently with the means at our disposal over coming years to achieve these objectives. But where there is no will, nor should there be money from us.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I have the impression that the vote should first be taken on the phrase “that free and fair world trade” etc. Is that correct? Have you included that?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism considered, amongst other things, the report on LEADER+ and, as a result, agreed to support the process of decentralisation in the management of actions, believing that that process could be effective on two conditions: that local action groups represent the general interests of the local community, and that Commission control mechanisms are utilised to prevent local and regional political authorities from using LEADER+ resources to support civil groups and organisations which are related to those authorities. We ask for a guarantee that the decision-making bodies for the projects are represented equally by three elements: political representatives and public administrations, companies and economic operators, and social operators, including unions and non-governmental organisations. We would particularly like to stress that there must be balanced representation between men and women in all of these bodies. We would also like to stress that the main objective is the promotion of strategies for sustainable development, whose positive effects would extend to a broader geographical area than the local community itself, and we therefore feel it is appropriate for the projects to be integrated into the development programmes, included in Objectives 1 and 2, and into the regional planning of the regions and countries in which they are located. We are pleased that all the rural areas of the Union may be involved in LEADER+, but we believe that it is necessary to concentrate Community resources in the less-favoured regions in order to facilitate the process of socio-economic cohesion within the Union, and that state governments should not divert these resources towards objectives other than cohesion. The Committee believes that projects financed under action 1 should place value on the potential of endogenous development, in particular based on local traditions, techniques and practices, on specific production and on the management of sustainable energy. The Committee supports the Commission proposal to concentrate actions in small selected areas and believes that, given the dispersed nature of many rural inhabited locations, the minimum demographic ceiling for the selection of a project should be reduced to 10 000 inhabitants. We believe it is necessary to coordinate the development objectives and management mechanisms of actions 2 and 3, financed by LEADER, with those of other actions financed by other Community programmes relating to interregional and international cooperation and partnership, such as INTERREG, SAPAR, PHARE, TACIS and MEDA, in the same areas.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I think this is a matter of common sense. Anyone who follows my group’s activities knows how important the International Criminal Court is to us. After the events that have just taken place in Ramallah, however, with the bombing and besieging of the Palestinian Authority’s headquarters, this matter must clearly be our priority. The suggestion you have just mentioned, namely starting Wednesday afternoon with the statements on the Middle East, is therefore particularly welcome.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, although we meet together this afternoon as representatives of the Member States , our concern is obviously for our friends, the candidate countries. This morning’s meeting was a wonderful and very positive symbol. However, the job is not finished. Like everyone, I hope that the negotiations will finish in the next few weeks and that they will have a positive outcome. In this respect, I regret the importance given over to financial concerns. Far from advocating a wasteful attitude – I am certainly not supporting the idea of reckless spending – our governments and ourselves must show some generosity and vision. ‘Realpolitik’ is not necessarily synonymous with greed. There is a risk that inadequate budgets will hamper reforms in Central Europe and we may pay a high price for this in the future. The accession of our friends to the EU will not spell an end to the difficulties. My main concern is for public opinion and the state of mind of others. Thus, in our countries, there is still a great deal to do so that our citizens understand the profound meaning of the EU enlargement. For now, they are more or less blinded by complicated calculations and, ultimately, cannot see the wood for the trees. I fear that there is a degree of confusion in the candidate countries over what the European Union really is, over its fundamental objectives and what it means to have a will to live together whilst consenting to sovereignty being genuinely delegated. For countries that are fervently attached to their independence and their freedom, becoming a member of the European Union is a very beneficial – and I am not a Eurosceptic – but very considerable step. I regret that the negotiations, based on the Copenhagen criteria, have somewhat neglected this aspect of things, the greatest part being devoted to the technical, and particularly, the economic aspects of the dossier. Following accession, however, we must continue our work to enlighten and convince people throughout the enlarged EU. As the Commissioner himself said earlier, this subject is not simply about technical issues, it is also about our soul.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this was an extremely important report. Right across Europe, the abuse of alcohol by children and adolescents is a growing problem. In Ireland the level of alcohol abuse by young people has grown dramatically over the years. One of the things we need to look at is the whole advertising campaign by the alcohol industry. The alcohol industry portrays alcohol as something that is necessary to enjoy life. It portrays the abuse of alcohol as something that is acceptable in society. Yet when you look at what happens in society – not just to young people but also to older people – one of the major problems we have is the abuse of alcohol, which contributes to violence in the home, violence on the streets and to serious crime. We have to address this issue. One of the best ways of addressing this is by looking at the advertising industry. For example, there is a restriction on cigarette advertising on television, yet there is no restriction on alcohol advertising on television. There is something seriously wrong here. Yes, smoking damages health and causes major problems for the smoker and for passive smokers. But alcohol causes major problems throughout society, from health problems, to violence, to abuse against other people and the persons themselves. We need to consider whether it is acceptable that the alcohol industry can advertise in such a carte blanche fashion. It is completely unacceptable. We need to address this. We need proper restrictions on the advertising of alcohol. It is a drug and should be accepted and recognised as such. It should not be promoted as something that is necessary to enjoy life, because it is not.

Political group: Verts-ALE