GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the key elements of this reform are decoupling and modulation; the two measures combined are going to have a very considerable impact on the development of the least-favoured areas and that worries us. According to the studies carried out, in my country we could see the abandonment of one million and a half hectares of cereals, half of which are in my region, Castilla-La Mancha, one of the regions with the lowest yields in the European Union. The total decoupling of aid seems to me to be a hasty decision, particularly in view of the precedent of the United States, which introduced this measure in 1996. The measure is costing the US billions of dollars in emergency aid to alleviate the losses to farmers. Furthermore, the European Commission has not yet clarified to this Parliament what the functioning of the complicated system of rights it has conceived of would be. The excuse used is the negotiations with the WTO, but a modest partial decoupling would be sufficient to provide the room for manoeuvre in those negotiations. We agree on the need to strengthen rural development, but European farmers will never understand any cut which does not benefit that development. Therefore, the reduction in subsidies proposed by the Commission in order to deal with other financial needs should be eliminated. Furthermore, it does not make any sense to adopt decisions today on the basis of calculations and estimates which could vary over the next few years. With regard to the rice sector, it should be said that this sector is the main loser from this reform. The production in the intervention price of 50%, as proposed by the Commission, without full compensation, in addition to the repercussions of the Everything but Arms Agreement, will jeopardise Community production. While we must support the commitments made by the European Union to those countries, it is also necessary to find a solution for many countries of Europe. The current common organisation of the market in rice contains perverse elements, particularly the system of penalties for exceeding the maximum guaranteed areas. In the rice sector those penalties are exponential, which could lead to penalties of up to 50%, for an excess of just 8%, in contrast to the cereals sector, in which penalties are proportional to the excess. I believe that resolving this and establishing aid which compensates fully for the reduction in the guaranteed price are two of the things that the rice sector is demanding of this Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and they must be taken into account. I would like to reiterate my full support for the report by Mr Bautista, which furthermore urges the Council of Ministers of the European Union to adopt the Commission’s proposal to negotiate a fixed tariff within the World Trade Organisation. And I would also like naturally to congratulate all the rapporteurs who have been involved in this series of reports.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her report. She has hit the nail on the head with her observation that at the Berlin Summit, political ideals and ambitions had to give way to a short-sighted bookkeeping mentality. The European Union’s own resources have the feel of national contributions. This is why the discussion on the system of own resources is being dominated by a net mentality: who are the net payers of the European Union and who make the net profits? It will be clear that the economic benefits appeal to the individual Member States, to the detriment of values such as stability, solidarity and welfare in the long term. It is regrettable that the net payers mainly focus on the revenue side of the budget. Consequently, a net mentality will mainly lead to missed chances. For example, the Netherlands has turned its back on the fund for refugees, a fund which, by the Netherlands own admission, it would benefit from disproportionately. But the Netherlands had prioritised “money back from Europe” over and above “value for money”. The Berlin straitjacket means, above all, that Europe cannot realise its responsibilities. It leads to proposals in which Turkey, purely from financial motives, is offered a different political route of access. It leads to transitional periods which are far too long for the other candidate countries in terms of the environment, for fear that otherwise this, and I quote from the government document, “would lead to an increase in financial strain”. Unexpected events – which are always to be expected – lead to unfortunate mishaps, to proposals where the reconstruction of Kosovo is at the expense of developing countries. The Berlin Summit could also be dubbed the Summit of national exemption positions. Four countries were exempted from contributing to the United Kingdom’s exemption position. The rapporteur adopted a very wise viewpoint in this respect and has formulated a goal which I support, namely the abolition of all these exemption positions. The four countries which, rightly so, have rejected the British correction mechanism, should make an effort to rectify this situation. In respect of levies, it has been proposed that the Member States can now retain 25% instead of 10%. Contrary to the rapporteur, I welcome this development, and I would even take it one step further. As far as I am concerned, Member States should be allowed to keep 100%, as long as we increase the rebate via the percentage of GNP. The GNP eminently reflects the economic development in Member States. It is, to my mind, therefore, the fairest instrument to distribute Europe’s financial responsibility over the Member States.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The ‘polluter pays’ principle is currently widely accepted. Does that imply, however, that those with a great deal of money are allowed to cause a great deal of pollution? Furthermore, what happens if the culprit is unable to pay, or if the perpetrator is not found, or if everything is carried out according to the rules on authorisation? For such time as the economy continues to be considered more important than the environment, mitigating circumstances and exceptions will always be sought. More must be done to render disasters involving oil tankers at sea and involving nuclear power stations practically impossible, but if such disasters occur nevertheless, the damage is vast. In the current situation, compulsory insurance for all economic activities is the most important weapon for preventing such disasters. The insurance companies, which do not like paying out large sums, will force the companies insured with them to become safer. It emerged from the preliminary debate that it is not just a case of an undisputed technical regime. Disasters involving oil and those involving nuclear power are exempted owing to insufficient international regimes. The right wing is saying that compulsory insurance is not customary practice, will become prohibitively expensive, and gives rise to excessive bureaucracy. The alternative would be that no one would pay for cleaning up and restoration in the event of environmental disasters, or that this would be paid for out of taxes. I support all attempts to tighten up this Directive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, when I hear the discussion in this Chamber, I start to wonder what we are actually debating. For two years, Parliament has been demanding more legal clarity, and Commissioner Monti wants to create legal clarity on key issues. It is surely an illusion to believe that we can now suddenly enact the amendments envisaged in the Constitution on our own and bring competition law into line with the proposed article on the internal market. The fact is, Mr Herzog, that we spent months discussing that, and you did not obtain a majority for your proposals. You did not get majority support for the idea of rolling back sectoral liberalisation. You did not obtain a majority for your renewed demands for a framework directive. There was no majority behind your call for standardised European services of general interest. Now you are touting these ideas all over again. All I can say is that you either have no idea what Mr Monti is trying to do or you are seeking to overturn your defeat of four weeks ago. I cannot conceive of any other reasons. Mr Swoboda, as he said himself, is truly an expert on foreign affairs. On matters of competition law, though – you would do better to keep a low profile Mr Swoboda – because you have not grasped the views of the House as reflected in the voting figures. If we call for legal clarity, as we did, and Mr Monti presents a proposal – which takes full account of subsidiarity, Mrs Flautre – your objections leave me wondering what you actually want. Mr Monti proposes that subsidies of less than EUR 15 million a year paid to businesses with an annual turnover of less than EUR 40 million should in future be the sole responsibility of the Member States. If they no longer require approval, this surely means more freedom for the Member States. This is the legal clarity we want. I fail to understand the point of all the discussion here. Approval need no longer be sought for the awarding of aid for housing construction and for hospitals. I cannot fathom the debate here, because this is surely part of what we have been demanding. For this reason, all I can say is that, if Mr Monti’s proposal as I understand it enters into force, it will do so on the basis of the EC Treaty in its present form, which empowers him to enact such legislation without submitting it to codecision. He is acting to ensure that subsidiarity is strengthened, and he is acting to ensure that legal clarity will prevail in important areas by the end of the current legislative term of the European Parliament. We do not want to give our blessing here to state aid for the likes of Electricité de France or Volkswagen, but grants to small and medium-sized businesses, including regional grants, are to fall within the ambit of the Member States in future, and Mr Monti intends to open up that possibility. Before we spend another three years debating a White Paper and framework legislation, he is making things happen. I can only heartily welcome the fact that greater legal clarity will finally prevail in these matters before the end of this parliamentary term. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this report is all about bringing respect back to this House. We should not forget that this is only the halfway stage, because when this report leaves here it has to be approved by the Council. The principle behind this report is good: equal pay for equal work. However, I have to ask whether we are all equal. According to some of the amendments tabled, I do not think we are. One of the amendments talks about the considerable economic differences which exist between the existing Member States and the accession countries. Is it not the case that there are considerable economic differences even within the 15 Member States? So when we set out the principle of equal pay for equal work, the 10 accession countries do not fit into that principle. So we have got this wrong. The big issue for me is the whole question of the expenses. I congratulate the working group on coming up with a formula. Transparency in expenses is essential. We must stick to the principle of travel at cost. That is an issue which is in our hands and we can approve it without going to the Council. Let us not squander it and let us not waste it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in order to assess the results of the Madrid Summit we must take good account of the context in which this meeting has taken place, a context of great uncertainty and fragility. Therefore, in order to make a balanced assessment, we must understand that in the time that has passed between Río and Madrid not all the hopes raised at the Río Summit have been fulfilled. Developments, in particular economic developments, have lessened expectations and I therefore believe that all the participants and observers at the summit can be moderately satisfied with the fact that the summit has taken place within a context of general agreements, of common denominators, and by the fact that we have been able to present an assessment of relations between the European Union and the Latin American and Caribbean countries which contains concrete achievements, association agreements with Mexico and with Chile, the maintenance of the prospect and the will for an association agreement with Mercosur and also the maintenance of a positive outlook in relation to the partnership with the Andean countries and the countries of Central America. I warned the Council and the Commission during the debate prior to the Madrid meeting of the foreseeable risk that these countries might be disappointed. I am pleased to acknowledge today that this risk has been successfully prevented, the opening up of a prospect for agreements with the two sub-regions has been maintained, and I hope that this is not a rush forward but a genuinely serious and consistent commitment, because nothing could be worse in this disturbed context than raising expectations and perspectives which are not then met. Summits are only worth so much. The important thing is to maintain political momentum and, as Mr Salafranca said a few moments ago, to maintain commitments which must not only be political commitments but practical commitments which are reflected in the budget. If this is the case, things will move forward. If not, that person who said at the Madrid Summit that ‘we go from summit to summit while our peoples go from abyss to abyss’ will unfortunately be proved right.

Political group: PSE
The resolution claims to support the democratic regime in Bolivia when, in its own preamble, it states that, in this country – the poorest in South America – small-scale farmers, workers and the unemployed are largely excluded from political life and that, moreover, this ostensible democratic regime has just massacred the poor who were demonstrating against the then President of the Republic. For us, the only democracy that has existed for some days in Bolivia is the direct democracy exercised by the people, a democracy that has shown that, in spite of the army and in spite of repression, the people are able to get rid of a President of the Republic not wanted by the majority. Bolivia is an example, not because of its regime but because of the reaction of its people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would firstly like to point out that it seems to me absurd to hold a joint debate in this House on the human rights situation in the world and in the European Union. My group said this in the Conference of Presidents and was only supported by the Group. Furthermore, Mr President, I would like to ask you to note that I find it incredible that we are organising a debate in this way, because it seems that human rights in the world are more important to us than human rights in the European Union. The comparisons are odious and I am not talking about the victims of a lack of human rights, but we should be more concerned with dealing with what is exclusively in our hands. I would like to say to Mr Cornillet that I am grateful for his effort and his work, and I would like to ask him to consider the possibility that in the coming months, and based on his experience, we should seek amongst all of us, calmly and serenely, a method which will allow us to work in the future, taking account of his extremely valuable experience. His experience has been valuable because this is the first year that we have produced this report, after the declaration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I would like you to take this into account, Mr Cornillet. In my last few seconds I will speak not about methods but about content. Mr Pirker, Mr Hernández Mollar, we do not want to put forward a common immigration policy. We simply want recognition that Mr Cornillet’s report clearly demonstrates that the people most affected by violations of human rights are minorities and, especially, asylum seekers and immigrants. If human rights are deteriorating in this respect, we must put forward solutions and conclusions which reflect it. That is what we want.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, before I begin my speech, I should like to highlight the unanimity in this House over the previous report so that the Commission reflects upon the reasons underlying the amendments we have tabled. I hope that such unanimity leads them to reconsider their position on these two amendments that you said you would not adopt. In any event, regarding the report we are currently debating, I should like to point out that the specific aim of these technical measures is to protect juveniles of marine organisms in order to reduce the threat to future yields. As a result, alongside the Commission, we are aiming and endeavouring to protect fishery resources. As you know, such measures include rules on the size of fishing gear, – and of meshes in particular – minimum allowable landing sizes, specific closed areas, protection of endangered species and so on. The governing Regulation No 850/98 entered into force on 1 January of this year, but it must obviously continue to be periodically adapted to incorporate any new data and scientific innovations which may emerge. In the case we are currently dealing with, we are discussing the fifth amendment which will enable the Commission to include various new measures that, in our opinion, are fully justified. We are talking about nets for shrimp fishing, closed areas for fishing for sand eels and a review of the minimum size for certain bivalve molluscs and crustacea. The Commission’s proposed revisions and additions to Annex XII appear to be reasonable. However, in the newly added case of deepwater rose shrimp, the carapace length of 24 millimetres seems excessive and could cause problems for fishermen. As a result, your rapporteur has introduced an amendment, which has already been adopted by the Committee on Fisheries, suggesting a compromise of setting this restriction at 22 millimetres. This compromise, of course, has already been agreed with the Member States as being more appropriate. We also feel that reducing the size of carpetshells from 40 to 38 millimetres, which has been widely called for by the sector, is a very positive step. Therefore, it is now a question of adapting certain measures that will have a positive impact on economic and social spheres whilst strictly respecting scientific reports. To sum up, it is essential that this regulation is kept up to date and that it is based on the best available scientific recommendations. This will not be the last amendment made given that there will be a continuing need to adapt to specific conditions and to scientific reports that emerge in the future. For this reason, with this amendment – which I think should be taken into consideration – we accept the overall proposal from the Commission and I hope that the Commission will in turn accept our amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the fact that negotiations are taking place is no secret: that was why I was able to ask the question – we do not disagree on that – but the problem lies in the content. It is awfully nice of the Council to tell us that it will inform us afterwards, but we – the only democratic body in the EU – would like to be consulted as it negotiates whether or not it is currently written in the Treaty. The principle is real exposure. I have a suspicion that the President-in-Office is personally in favour of transparency. He should therefore tell us what is really going on. I would like to wish the President-in-Office a happy Christmas and say thanks to him for being with us over the last six months, because I have a terrible feeling that we will not see him again.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the trial of thirteen Iranian Jews accused of espionage has opened today in Teheran. The trial is taking place behind closed doors. These people have been in prison for months under conditions we know virtually nothing about. Their lawyers, some of whom are state appointed, were only allowed to look at the files the day before yesterday. There is no guarantee of the right to a defence. I am afraid this may only be a mock trial. Yet the charge is so serious it could lead to the death penalty. When the case started, we had the privilege of hearing some leading government dignitaries publicly call for the prisoners to be put to death straight away. This case, which was built up from nothing – I think we are all convinced of that – has mobilised international public opinion powerfully. With strong feeling all over the world, including in Strasbourg today, the international pressure has had some impact because the Iranian leaders have softened their position, in particular announcing that most of the accused would no longer be appearing on the charge of espionage, tantamount to execution. Three have been freed on bail. Finally, the court announced this morning that the trial was being adjourned until 1 May, which is a step forward, at least. But some of the accused are still facing the death penalty and the others face heavy sentences. The government’s various changes of attitude illustrate their embarrassment very well. They were incapable of stating the charges clearly until the very last minute. It is also clear that the outcome of this trial partly depends on how the Iranian political situation evolves. In the last parliamentary elections, in February, the reformist tendency defeated the conservatives who include the most extremist elements. So this trial is starting at a significant moment: on the one hand, Iran is signalling openness and progress, on the other, the conservatives are trying to hang on to power by every means at their disposal. There is consequently a risk that this case of the thirteen Iranian Jews will be used by one faction against another, in step with domestic conflicts. Justice has little place in that kind of battle, and human rights even less. So it is imperative that we react. The European Union is based on the values laid down in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a member of the UN, Iran should be applying them too. That is why we must demand the release of the prisoners: the thirteen Iranian Jews, but also the other eight Moslem prisoners and the students we know absolutely nothing about. We must also call on the Union governments to do the same. We also demand that observers be permitted to attend the trial, because public hearings are fundamental to holding a fair trial. Finally, we must make it absolutely clear that the development of our relations with Iran will be subject to respect for human rights in that country.

Political group: GUE-NGL