GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, these security rules were submitted and discussed in the Committee competent to deal with them. This agreement can also be adopted or rejected regardless of them, but it cannot yet enter into force, as the security rules have not yet been adopted. The Interinstitutional Agreement can therefore be adopted tomorrow in any case. Please permit me to address a brief comment to the Members. We are dealing here solely with foreign, security and defence policy, none of which form part of the legislation. That, Mr Bonde, is why this committee does not deal with any papers that have to do with legislation, in which area Mr Turco is talking about justice and internal affairs. I have said quite clearly that the Agreement recommends that a separate agreement be negotiated for this area, and I believe that this should go much further in taking Parliament's rights into account. Mrs Hautala is right to say that, if this does not succeed, one of the options provided is that of an appeal. I would, by the way, like to tell Mrs Hautala and others that it is only when we know the documents that we can say whether their classifications are justified. If we see that access is not being given to papers that Parliament as a whole is actually meant to be able to see, we can say that they have been wrongly classified, and in this way bring about a change in practice at Council level. If, though, we know nothing about the documents, we can have no criticism to make on this score. Apart from that, we have to say that getting access to such documents represents a new start for the Council and the Commission as well. Without such a settlement, we will have difficulty in carrying on any sort of European foreign and security policy. In this instance, therefore, all the institutions have a shared interest in finding a point from which they can all start.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by impressing upon us two mottos for the Commission and for our own work. The first is this: ‘Not in the beginning is the reward, but only in consistent perseverance, the setting and achievement of objectives’. And the second is this: ‘He who does not take himself seriously will not be taken seriously by others’. Although we went into the Convention aiming to make Europe more transparent, to bring it closer to its citizens and to make it more democratic, we have not yet made that a reality. The objectives are more relevant than ever. So, Mr President of the Commission, he who would make Europe more transparent must be prepared to know his own tasks and pursue objectives in a consistent way. What that means is that I am calling for greater earnestness, a more earnest approach to Parliament, to our resolutions, to our aims, to our fears and criticisms and to make our self-image as a corporate body a reality. We get more and more proposals that actually ought never to have emerged from the Commission: on lines of credit for consumers; the Chemicals Directive; for the prohibition of discrimination, which flies in the face of economic reality; there is the harmonisation of duty on diesel, which has been thought through sector by sector rather than as a whole. I urge you to take up your collegial responsibility; with specific reference to Eurostat and to the statements you have made today, I demand that you take your political responsibility more seriously. With the Stability and Growth Pact in mind, I demand that you insist on compliance with the law. We read in your programme your call for better coordination of the Member States’ economic and budgetary policies, but I can tell you that we have no need of better coordination; what we need is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. To do that would make for enough coordination! I call upon you to take initiatives to strengthen the internal market, competition policy and social cohesion. If you also put yourself at the head of projects to create a sense of European identity, that will play a part in making European policy domestic policy, so that the internal politics of the Council will not be able to block European projects, for which people at home will blame the Commission and Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Nisticò said there was an oral amendment to Amendment No 43, which is one of the ones you are trying to take en bloc.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the disease which is now threatening a borderless Europe may contribute to increasing the citizens’ crisis of confidence in both national and Community institutions. Health risks to livestock, changes in eating habits and the collapse of the production sector are ample cause for us to take extraordinary decisions. Measures have economic and political costs and I would like to know from the Council and the Commission which of these costs they are prepared to meet. Are you prepared to increase aid measures in all the countries of the European Union? What do the European institutions think of wide-scale vaccinations? What position will you adopt in relation to third countries? Are you going to take any steps in relation to the unilateral restrictions being imposed on us by countries such as the United States, Canada, Bulgaria or Saudi Arabia, and in relation to less than rigorous imports from countries which are vaccinating, such as Argentina, Chile, Brazil, etc., which may put all of our livestock at risk? What is going to happen with regard to wild animals, Commissioner? What measures are envisaged for wild animals and for zoos, circuses, etc.? What will happen if deer, wild boar or goats are affected? Lastly, I would like to know whether the European Commission is going to take account of these health crises when presenting its budget for the European emergency veterinary fund, which is so poorly resourced.

Political group: PPE-DE
Concerning the statement in Amendment No 32 by Mr Rack, Mrs Schleicher, Mrs Cederschiöld and Mr Méndez de Vigo, on behalf of the Group, to the Duff/Voggenhuber report on an EU Charter for Fundamental Rights, our Group questions whether, under the present circumstances, it is still necessary for the Union to become a party to the ECHR. This is an issue which requires deeper analysis. Overlapping and conflicts between the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the European Court of Human Rights should, in any event, be avoided.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I wish to congratulate Mrs Sommer on the excellent report she has presented and which I fully support. Like the rapporteur, I believe that the Commission proposal must contribute to the smoother operation of the internal market. From the users’ point of view, then, the directive could facilitate toll charging in the various Member States, eliminating waiting times and consequently increasing capacities for infrastructure use. The current system, specifically as regards international freight hauliers, who might be obliged to acquire separate devices, each with its own contract and to install them in their vehicles, makes no sense at all. I wish, however, to make a few observations on some points that I feel are relevant and to which, I believe, this House must pay particular attention. My first point concerns the need to make it perfectly clear that the directive does not affect Member States’ freedom to decide on their own system of infrastructure charging for roads. The directive only covers the charging system and does not include road-charging policy as such. Furthermore, and as regards the timetable for interoperability, I share the rapporteur’s view that this should start on 1 January 2007, because this date would guarantee sufficient and necessary time for the industry and those managing infrastructures to define and install equipment that meets the new standards. Lastly, I wish to emphasise that the directive must not ignore essential elements on which its success depends. These are: creating awareness-raising activities for users as regards technological developments, implementing legal procedures for monitoring and preventing fraud, analysing types of compensation for investments that have been made or which are being made by operators in parallel technological, financial or commercial processes whose viability is threatened by the requirement to switch to the new system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr Patten’s intervention was very intelligent and demonstrated his ability and knowledge. Mr Patten knows the Far East extremely well – he has been closely involved there – and the majority of today’s speakers probably know South America better. He has described the situation in very clear and very economic terms, and that is that, while the countries of the Far East have in recent years gone from misery – by adapting to the new situation – to a higher standard of living, in the countries of Latin America the standard of living has declined and, in 50 or 60 years, a country such as Argentina has gone from exceeding the European average to being below it. Mr Patten is right, but the problem is that at the moment – this is what the Latin American countries tell us – the international system is obliging the countries of Latin America to reduce their standard of living, to proletarianise and to introduce a genuine revolution, in other words, to ‘Asianise’ itself. The problem is cultural and serious. And we hope, of course, that the European Union will not just take account of cold economic factors, but also the cultural and political factors which will provide the conditions for maintaining democracy in that region.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, before I begin, allow me to mention the attack that took place today in Spain, specifically in Catalonia, ten kilometres from my own home. Allow me to express my rejection of this attack and also to express my respect for the victim’s party colleagues and his family, and the conviction that dialogue and democrats working together is the only hope. Going on to the subject of Chile, I would like to express the confidence, the approval and the satisfaction, on the part of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, that the resolution contains some important points, such as respect for the power of Chilean justice, for the Government, for allocating responsibility and, above all, being able to provide support from the European Union for the democratic process with real and positive agreements. I also express the support of our Group for the amendment from the Confederal Group of the on the non-interference of military powers in the process. And allow me to point out that it is important that we approve this joint resolution, now that Pinochet is in Chile, something that we were not able to do when Pinochet was in the United Kingdom. At the time the Liberals and tried, but the members of the People’s Party and the s were not in favour, in order not to affect the judicial process. We are happy that the situation has now changed. Mozambique

Political group: ELDR
Mr Speaker, ladies and gentlemen thank you for the report. My group supports the line that has been chosen. Technical cooperation is important, of course. Russia has considerable scientific resources, especially in the field of basic research, and a large proportion of it remains untapped and unutilised in an international context. The unstable situation in the country has not interrupted research work, although it too is experiencing difficulties. There is a shortage of available funds, salaries are delayed, and it is difficult to produce scientific publications; the shelves of the shops are filled with cheap literature: thrillers, sex and so on. In the 1993 – 1998 period, the European Union financed cooperation in the area of techno-scientific research to the tune of approximately EUR 140 million. 35,000 scientists from Russia have been involved in these projects. Quite a number of government officials seem to be travelling into Russia, too. I would be obliged if the Commission could inform us as to what the proportion of officials is to scientists. Currently, EUR 90,000 is spent each year on meetings and travel. Agriculture is one area of research cooperation. I would also like it to cover organic production, for example. In Russia, small farmers have actually been compelled to switch to organic production because they cannot afford chemical fertilisers. They are therefore surprisingly close to the organic ideal that we aspire to here. Cooperation would also be important where industrial methods and organisation are concerned. We could make significant progress in that area. There is also talk about “the technology of the information society” being part of the cooperation referred to in the agreement. But why is the content sector of the information society not included? In many ways, Russia is a very content-rich country. Where content is concerned, we are lagging behind our main competitor, the United States, and the Russians really do have very different angles, which ought to be exploited. Finally, I would like to refer to the war in Chechnya, where the relentless fighting continues – or bombing, to be exact. The number of refugees is on the increase, and conditions have become horrific. The Russian leadership refuses to react to any of this. The real victims are now civilians, not the terrorists, as they call the Chechen rebels. It seems more and more likely that this is all part of the Russian election campaign. Those responsible for the explosions in Moscow have not been found, or have at least not been charged. This amounts to pulverisation of a nation, and I believe we should become more seriously involved, in order to make Moscow listen and take heed. This is something that cannot be tolerated. IN THE CHAIR: MR PODESTÀVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must admit that it feels slightly surreal wanting to talk about other aspects of the Summit apart from Iraq, particularly given that some of the other things that the Summit dealt with are not exactly going to help us towards a more equal or a more peaceful world. I want to pick up on certain aspects where, for once – unlike last year's Spring Summit- we looked at issues relating to global equity to some extent. For example, Paragraph 60 onwards of the Presidency Conclusions mentioned promoting sustainable development on a global scale. Those Conclusions talked about enhancement of corporate social and environmental responsibility, both at EU level and internationally. I would hope that it would apply to such issues as the granting of contracts on a fair and open basis – rather than giving them to your rich friends. The Conclusions also mention the means of promoting sustainable and fair trade. I wonder if we have actually proofed some of the other policies that we came up with at this Spring Summit against those ambitions or, indeed, ambitions to encourage export credits that are consistent with sustainable development when certain Member States pay out over 50% of their export credits to enable arms deals to go ahead. I hope that, in the aftermath of this Spring Summit, we are going to pay attention to the policies that we talked about there. I hope that we are going to carry those forward seriously, because we need to examine this ideal of becoming the world's most internationally competitive continent in the light of asking ourselves what the implications are for the global losers if we are the global winners, and what this is going to do to enhance stability, equality and justice in the world.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Europe is now almost reunited. There is a Convention engaged in drafting a European constitution. The European Union must be brought closer to its citizens by means of an information policy enabling them to understand how Community institutions operate. This is essential to ensure the Union becomes more transparent and that full advantage is taken of European citizenship. It is difficult to develop that sense of belonging to a community essential to operate as a European citizen without appropriate information on the community one is part of and an understanding of it. I therefore voted in favour of the Bayona report. It charts the way forward clearly and defines the appropriate instruments to enable European citizens to be more involved in the Community they belong to, as indeed they should be. I believe it is particularly helpful that further to adoption of the amendment we tabled, the report recognises the need for this information to be available in the official languages of certain parts of the territory of Member States. This is the case of Catalonia. Languages such as Catalan are part of the identity of peoples who make up the European Union. Their commitment to the European cause and their sense of full European citizenship need to be rooted in that identity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, not only did the attack in Madrid kill many people, but it also undermined the sovereignty of a European state. The fact is that, twist it how you will, the terrorists obviously succeeded in influencing the sovereign decision of the Spanish electorate. Not least as a result, terrorists have intervened in Europe. I wonder whether Europeans have recognised the nature of this threat appropriately and are prepared to meet it. The reaction so far has been relatively weak. We have resurrected programmes that we have had ever since September 11, 2001, yet which have been only inadequately implemented. Recourse has been had to visionary ideas, such as setting up a European Secret Service, which could perhaps be considered in the distant future, but certainly does not address the real threat. Calls have been made for someone to be appointed to deal with this – pretty much the standard response to a European problem – and someone actually has been; Mr de Vries is a highly-esteemed man and a former Member of this House. What is important is not that he has been chosen, but rather the question of what powers he is to have. To this question, few answers have been given. The need of the moment would appear to be prevention, for which purpose the data available in Europe, for example on terrorists, should be gathered together. Although the national services possess a great deal of information, there is little willingness to share it at the European level. If Europe collaborates more closely and reliably in this area than it has so far done, it will now have an opportunity to defend itself against the terrorists in the long term and with impressive impact.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am indeed reading the text of Mrs Peijs, and in order to emphasise this, I am standing in her place, but to remove any doubt you may have: I am totally behind it. The ‘euro introduction’ project has been a success. In the Netherlands and in Ireland, the introduction of the euro is practically completed. More than 90% of all payments are already conducted in euros. Mrs Peijs is proud – and I could not agree more – that European citizens have so quickly adopted the euro with such a great sense of innovation and have put their own currencies to one side. The Europeans did not need long changeover periods. Today, we undoubtedly owe a special word of thanks and recognition to the retail trade, which has absorbed a whole host of difficulties with appropriate flexibility. The banks and their staff have also contributed a great deal to the smooth transition. We must now take an important next step. The euro must remain a stable and strong currency. For that purpose, the President of the Central Bank must first and foremost remain where he is and must closely monitor the bank’s objectives, namely low inflation. It is almost more important for the Member States to start to realise that they are not on their own and are not fully autonomous, but that everything they do, and notably what they do not do, has a bearing on the entire Community and on the stability of the currency. In order to sustain the confidence of the markets, it is very important for the large Member States in particular – and perhaps notably Germany – at long last to take the necessary measures to open up their markets completely, to make their labour markets more flexible, to make their pension systems sustainable and to modernise their social benefits. Instead of being the Union’s driving force, these countries act more as a brake on the Union’s progress. Any weakness in the currency is down to the Member States and so far not to the Central Bank, which is operating exceptionally well, except in the field of payment balance systems, such as TARGET, and the consumer system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I disagree with this decision. The House is free to decide if it wishes to vote on this now or not and I would therefore request that we take a vote on whether to vote. (The President put the proposal to the House which decided to end voting time) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my Group backs the rapporteur, who has clearly illustrated that the convergence and stability programmes are extremely valuable when it comes to forging real economic policy in the European Union in general and the euro zone in particular which is a matter of common interest. We see the outlines of economic policy on the one hand, but we see the stability and convergence programmes on the other. I should also like to remind the House in this context that the Stability and Growth Pact has predominantly been geared in the past towards achieving stability. It did, however, always include growth factors. From this point of view, the rapporteur’s approach is the right one, indicating as it does that it makes sense to use investments, both private and public, in order to achieve a real knowledge-based society of the future in the European Union. If these public-sector investments are used for the benefit of information technologies, other new technologies and a better, modernised infrastructure in the euro zone and the European Union, then this is the right way forward. From this point of view it is also very important that we restart the debate on the quality of public finances. Luckily, the Commission has presented a paper here which will need to play an important part in future discussions in connection with stability and convergence programmes. Because we must ensure when evaluating the state of public finances, which is also our job, when analysing the content of the convergence and stability programmes, that we identify the right trend, that we identify the right development, but that we do not lose sight during our discussions of the possibility of steering in the opposite direction. Mr von Wogau, you referred to possible dangers. You pointed out that advice in the Bible on lean and fat years should still be seen as relevant by financial policy-makers in the European Union. Any analysis of public finances, however, must also consider what impact expenditure may have on monetary policy. We therefore need to work with sound public finances in the euro zone because a poor financial situation could jeopardise monetary stability. Windfalls have not been spent on consumption as in past years; they have also been used to reduce debt and for investments. We must also consider how this sort of economic policy coordination can be used to guarantee social and employment policy as well as monetary stability. Here too there is both an obligation and a challenge for the countries in the euro zone, the pre-ins and future candidate countries alike.

Political group: PSE