GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, enlargement is the greatest challenge that the European political project has ever faced. It is, however, not an end in itself, but a means towards political, economic, cultural and civilisational ends. Enlargement must mean more and better Europe and not less Europe, even if it increases in area and territory. Enlargement must be supported and well received by national public opinion. Public opinion in many countries is favourable towards enlargement for reasons other than simple economic calculations and national self-interest. These countries hope that enlargement will strengthen Europe and will be fair and, unless this happens, they will feel cheated. For example, and if we take account of the opinion polls, the Portuguese are clearly more in favour of enlargement than – irony of ironies! – the Belgians, the French and the Germans. Why should this be the case? It is because the Portuguese have benefited from the support of the European Union at a crucial time in their recent history and feel that other Europeans share this right. These very Portuguese citizens would not have the same attitude, however, if they were afraid that enlargement might weaken the European project and harm Europe’s internal cohesion. I am delighted at the orderly, methodical and smooth course of the negotiations, but the hard core of the trickiest dossiers has still not been broached. Some Members have recommended today, in this part-session, that the ten applicant countries should join the European Union by 2004. I think this is too soon. We must not delay the process of accession through expedient measures, neither should we rush things. We must respect the pace of each applicant country. In the 1930s, the celebrated French writer Paul Valéry, coined the famous phrase, which said, and I quote, that civilisations are now aware of their mortality. He also pointed out that Europe’s greatest weakness was its inability to form a political entity with powers that are both solid and legitimate. This is the problem. I hope that enlargement contributes to establishing this legitimate and strong entity and not the opposite.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, for the information. Allow me to say that, after this, I was placed rather in the same situation as when one reads the news, for example in one’s own country, that a hospital which has just been renovated at a cost of millions is to be closed down. You mentioned that EUR 200 million had been invested in the Phare partnership to improve safety. I believe that, where this is concerned, we need an honest appraisal to be carried out. What have we done previously? What has proved to be unnecessary now in the light of the perhaps rather stricter line Europe has adopted in the membership negotiations? I think we may have behaved a little stupidly here. I also think that uncertainty in the matter of what we have had a legal basis for doing has shown that we in the Community could do with rather more in the way of conditions where energy supplies are concerned, something we shall be discussing over the next few days when it comes to the Intergovernmental Conference. Where the Slovakian nuclear power plant, Bohunice, is concerned, it is obvious that we need more information about what the real situation is there in the matter of safety. Unfortunately, we have the type of situation in which none of us knows anything about this; we do not have access to the same information as the Commission. Where Ignalina is concerned, I want to say that I do not think that the information we have obtained is really satisfactory in the light of, for example, the so-called WENRA report where it is stated that we do not have any certain knowledge about safety in so-called reactor shutdown systems.

Political group: ELDR
I welcome the initiative to improve training for EU officials working on foreign issues, but I cannot support the creation of a single diplomatic corps. The Member States are responsible for foreign diplomacy, and I think there is a danger that transforming the Commission’s delegations into Community delegations with legal standing might lead to conflicts of interest with the Member States’ national diplomatic delegations. I cannot therefore vote in favour of Mr Galeote Quecedo’s report. - Imbeni report (A5-0191/2000)

Political group: PSE
I abstained from voting on the proposal for a directive concerning the quality of bathing water. I do not think that this directive is really necessary, in any case not with such a wealth of detail. This is bureaucratic Europe in all its splendour. Does not the principle of subsidiarity exist to leave responsibility for the quality of bathing water to the national or regional authorities?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, although I too have spent most of my life in fast cars, I agree with my colleague, Mr Florenz, that the directive on scrapping cars must make it clear that vintage cars are not included. These splendid cars do not constitute waste. That is why I voted in favour of the amendments. Neither can we fix what the age for a vintage car should be as there are very great differences from one country’s statutes to another’s. In this way vehicles of historic value can be preserved for future generations. We cannot forget old car enthusiasts either, of whom there are more than 50 000 in Finland alone. They are involved in low-profile work of valuable cultural importance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, during the debate on Palestine yesterday, there were many who brought up the subject of Chechnya, and there are also an incredible number of parallels between the situations in the two areas. Like Palestine, Chechnya is a country occupied by a strong and sizeable superior force. As in Palestine, people in Chechnya see their ordinary, fundamental rights being violated and, in the case of Chechnya, we also see a country completely reduced to ruins and in which 20% of the population has been killed. It is quite clear that both Israel and Russia are exploiting a situation in which the United States has declared war on terrorism and, under cover of this, are waging a war against a whole people; a war, moreover, that resembles ethnic cleansing. I think we should remember that there was no terrorism in Chechnya when, in 1991, the country made use of the law of 16 December 1966 – which said that countries within the Federation too were entitled to independence – to acquire independence from Russia. At that time there was no terrorism but, from 1994, Russia has done everything it can to prevent such independence. It is another example of the way in which the oppression of a people and the desperation felt by a population can lead people to do things they would never otherwise have done. Terrorism does not come about of itself. Terrorists do not fall from the sky. Certain population groups obviously do not have special genes which make them behave differently to the rest of us. It is of course the conditions people live under that make them behave as they do. It is important that we take a decision to invite Mr Maskhadov and Mr Putin to Strasbourg in September. In that way, we can bring about a debate, obtain a report and make an impression on both parties. I think we must demand open access for the humanitarian organisations and news media so that the information war is not a factor operating to the Chechens’ disadvantage. In the end, it is also necessary, however, for people who have been subject to atrocities to be given a clear sense that those who violate human rights will in the last analysis be punished. Unless they have that sense, I do not believe we shall get very far either with the fight for democracy and human rights or with the fight against terrorism. Basically, we must demand that the Russian occupation of Chechnya cease – preferably now.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for its extremely strong and clear statement on the unfortunate Zana case. During the recent Joint Parliamentary Committee meeting in Turkey, we brought up the issue of the Leyla Zana trial, as we always do. Justice Minister Cicek promised us that in the next package of constitutional reforms, which I think is to be published this week, the State Security Courts would be scrapped. This is, of course, first-class news because these courts do not contribute to justice; they do not contribute to security. The Turkish Government fully appreciates the political importance of the Zana case for the European Parliament. As a strong Turkophile, let me be quite clear that, if Leyla Zana and her colleagues are not released soon, it will be impossible for Turkey's closest friends to argue that accession negotiations should be opened from December. No country can seriously contemplate European membership with nearly six thousand prisoners of conscience, no matter how controversial those people prove to be.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I feel rather like the great Blondin, just before he started out on his tightrope walk across the Niagara Falls. I have to say that my group and my delegation are opposed in principle to the regulation or financing of political parties at a European level. We, like others in this Chamber, have deep concerns that the proposed funding for European political parties has no legal base. It follows from this that we cannot favour a legal provision for state funding of political parties at European level. State funding of European political parties is quite different, therefore, to state funding of political groups within the European Parliament. In the UK, short money, as it is known, is provided for the support of opposition parties' leadership in their parliamentary activities. Our view also is that the Schleicher report does not follow the principles of the Nice Declaration. Article 191 of the Declaration states: 'The provisions on the funding for political parties shall apply on the same basis for all these political forces represented in the European Parliament.' The Schleicher report quite clearly discriminates against some of the smaller parties and groups. Finally, as Commissioner Patten said: 'This regulation is mistaken in principle, unworkable in practice and discriminatory in effect.' However, I wish to thank all the colleagues who understand that, like Europe, our group and our delegation do thrive on its differences. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated, that is why I and my British colleagues will be opposing this premature report. In conclusion, my late grandfather, Harold Macmillan, always held the view that Members of Parliament should not be paid, because when they were paid it attracted the wrong sort of chap. (Laughter)

Political group: PPE-DE
The aim here is to simplify the rules governing the organisation of driving times and rest periods within the Union in order to increase road safety and improve working conditions for the people covered by the regulation. This proposal also aims to make the current rules compatible with the use of new digital recording equipment in order to improve compliance with the rules in force. Mr Markov’s report is along the same lines as the positive proposals by the European Commission: removing the possibility of dividing breaks, reducing exemptions, repealing measures concerning a minimum age for drivers, and introducing more stringent penalties for infringement of the rules. The rapporteur, however, has also succeeded in introducing amendments which I consider to be crucial. The report rejects provisions concerning the flexible week, increases controls and penalties in cases of non-compliance with the provisions of the regulation, and increases the participation of social partners. On the other hand, the rapporteur did not achieve a vote in favour of the amendment rightly proposing to reduce the working week to 45 hours. It was therefore tabled again in plenary and I naturally voted for it!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, implementing the EU’s common foreign and security policy will mean having to go from words to deeds. The Intergovernmental Conference now going on will have to create structures that will make effective decision-making and action possible. Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union, Javier Solana, deserves our support while he frames a strategy on which the Union’s foreign and security policy will be based. In a key role here will be the creation of a cordon of properly governed neighbouring countries on the Union’s external borders. The Commission proposal on the new neighbourhood policy is currently being debated by Parliament. It is a positive sign that future new Member States are actively working on the ‘Wider Europe’ initiative. We will need their skills, know-how and views in the development of relations with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. The proposals for a common foreign and security policy being discussed by the IGC are a logical extension of the decisions reached at the Helsinki Summit on improving the EU’s crisis management capabilities. It has to be said, however, that we are still a long way from a situation where the EU could offer its Member States guarantees of military security. There is no need to take a negative view of the fact that some Member States are making faster progress in the area of defence cooperation than others. At the same time we have to insist that strengthened cooperation should be open to everyone. We are in favour of the creation of an international system based on multilateralism, as mentioned in Mr Brok’s report. Strengthening the role of the UN will be of key importance here. I am pleased that my own Group of the has now taken a very special approach to how to improve the way the UN performs. Multilateralism also involves maintaining transatlantic relations. In the wake of the disagreements over the Iraq war we now must look ahead.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the labelling of food products containing genetically modified organisms is, of course, to be welcomed, because consumers can make up their own minds. Whether or not these consumers are right in having doubts about GMOs, the customer is ultimately always right. Legislation on labelling, however, to my mind, misses the mark on at least two fundamental counts. First of all, the consumer does not get what he wants. A consumer who wants GMO-free products does not want less than 0.9% or 0.5% GMOs in them. No, he does not want any GMOs at all. A non-GMO label would therefore have been much better. It is unfortunate that this can no longer be on the agenda, as we rejected it at first reading. Moreover, a label of that kind would have made superfluous the whole debate we are now having about co-existence. The second problem is that this is about political labelling which goes much further than information of potential relevance to public health. As far as I am concerned, paper traceability instead of factual traceability is a mistake. It is asking for fraud, and so the next food scandal is already in the making. Finally, it is to be hoped that this proposal will lead to a lifting of the GMO moratorium. This is what matters most; it means that Europe’s lack of knowledge compared to the United States is only growing. I should therefore like to ask the same question which Mrs Jackson raised a moment ago, namely whether this proposal will lead to the moratorium actually being lifted, because this is still shrouded in uncertainty.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Group of the is glad that finally the Commission, in accordance with Parliament’s request, is presenting a specific recovery plan for cod, separate from the recovery plan for hake, since, as we have always maintained, the situations of the respective stocks differ considerably. As the rapporteur, Mrs Stihler, points out, for three years the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has been saying that the cod populations in the North Sea and off the west of Scotland are in serious danger of total colla . The Socialist Group calls on the Commission to promote the best possible scientific opinions in order to provide knowledge at all times of the state of each resource in each fishing ground so that, on the basis of these rigorous scientific opinions, we can implement recovery plans, which may or may not involve drastic measures which – we must not forget – always lead to the scrapping of ships, unemployment for fishermen and other workers dependent on the fishing sector, and furthermore represent a serious blow for those European regions most dependent on fishing. We therefore believe that the precautionary approach must be a residual criterion to be taken into account only when reliable and safe scientific opinions are not available, but under no circumstances must it replace these scientific opinions. The fishing communities, as Mr Stevenson said a moment ago, demand a clear position, on the part of both the Commission and Parliament, in favour of prior, safe and well-founded scientific opinions, which take account of the sector’s opinions and which, as well as the state of resources, calculate and evaluate the socio-economic consequences of the conservation measures, and we have been asking the Commission for this for a long time. Over-fishing is a determining factor, but it is not the only cause of the problem of scarcity of resources. Knowing the causes is essential if we want the recovery plans – this plan for cod and other future ones – to achieve their objectives, since if we restrict ourselves to reducing catches without tackling causes other than over-fishing – and I would mention the disruption of the food chain or sea pollution – we will perhaps find that the years will have passed and fish populations will not have increased. We need to ascertain the effects on the cod populations in the Irish Sea and the North Sea of the extraction of more than a million tonnes of fish of species other than cod, but which are, however, a source of food for cod. We also need to know the impact of industrial fishing on other populations of white fish, because that may perhaps provide the key to explaining the decline of cod and hake. We want the Commission to investigate the causes of this colla of the species. We support the idea of a recovery plan which makes it possible to re-establish the stock and my group therefore supports the idea that the highest annual change, upwards or downwards, in any total allowable catch (TAC), should not exceed 15% after the first year of application of the recovery plan.

Political group: PSE
For years, quality and public health in the production of food were secondary to the pursuit of ever lower production costs. A cheap food package had to keep the costs down for the public at large. Governments and private business shared the same view about this reduction in costs, which was achieved, inter alia, by economies of scale, the use of artificial raw materials, intensification of the use of space, the import of animal feed from the Third World and an enormous number of redundancies. For that purpose, slaughter waste and dioxin-poisoned grass were fed to animals, or animals were gathered in pens and lorries where disease was able to spread readily. After all, if one wanted better food, there was a separate distribution circuit for those in a higher income bracket. Only when it transpired that people can contract fatal illnesses from contaminated food, did an increasing number of people want to know what they were eating. Once again, it is demonstrated that accidents need to happen first before the incentive is there to look for a solution to the problem. The solution does not lie in enhancing the European bureaucracy, or squabbles about the location and management of a new institution. Food safety can only be achieved if cost reduction and company profits are no longer paramount and if maximum openness is created in the field of complaints, minority verdicts, composition and safety measures. I look forward to the revolutionary effect which Mr Staes envisages, but it remains to be seen whether it will materialise.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the President of the Commission will not be surprised if I speak to him about the internal market. So as not to repeat what has already been said, in particular what has been said by Mr Fiori, who I agree with, I will refer to another central point of the debate, i.e. the reform of the Commission. What has the reform of the Commission to do with the internal market? The answer is a lot. Mr President of the Commission, on reading your White Paper on the reform of the Commission, it is clearly apparent that the guiding principle, the philosophy behind this reform, is something very vague which we cannot accept in this Parliament. This guiding principle is mainly the protection of the Community’s financial interests. That is clearly of concern to all of us, but it is only a starting point. From there on, the Commission must begin to work, and must fulfil its obligations in accordance with the Treaty. Allow me to give you an example, since the speaking time allotted to me does not give me much opportunity to expand on this idea. Let us consider the intended reform of the infringement procedure. What is the intention there? It is simply to administrate the existing resources on each level, instead of hearing this Parliament’s demand that we should create a genuine administrative procedural law for ensuring legal certainty, which is necessary from the point of view of the European citizen, that is to say, from the point of view of the people who may have recourse to this infringement procedure. It is simply said that this administrative procedural law will not be created, but rather demands will be selected. How can this be? How can these things be selected in a purely arbitrary way. From the point of view of this Parliament, this type of arrangement cannot be allowed. We understand that the Commission has to be reformed. We agree with the objectives of this reform. However, it should not lead to the abandonment of the great momentum of European construction, for the sake of protecting the Community’s financial interests, however important we may all agree that that is. The Treaty obliges the Commission, primarily, to provide that momentum.

Political group: PPE-DE