GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Firstly I must congratulate the rapporteur on his tenacity in this ‘chocolate’ issue. Next I will sketch the broad outlines of this issue. In 1996, the European Commission proposed amending the 1973 directive which authorised the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark to derogate from the applicable rules by replacing part of the cocoa butter in chocolate with other vegetable fats up to a maximum of 5% of the total weight. With the accession of new Member States, the number of countries authorising vegetable fats other than cocoa butter increased to seven with the addition of Finland – which authorises 10% – Austria, Portugal and Sweden. The eight other Member States – Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – ban vegetable fats. The current proposal therefore aims to give Member States the option of authorising the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter to chocolate products up to a maximum of 5% of the total weight of the finished product. This has clearly succeeded in causing some occasionally stormy debates and has particularly revived legitimate concerns among consumers. The latter felt particularly threatened some years ago when Europe, through certain harmonisation directives, tried to impose ‘Euro-products’ on us and they have demonstrated their desire to defend their culinary traditions. A campaign has subsequently developed to promote food quality at the same time as food diversity. In this case, although it is indisputable that Member States using vegetable fats instead of cocoa butter should be entitled to market their products, the question is whether these can be legitimately marketed under the name ‘chocolate’. The replacement of cocoa butter with other vegetable fats raises a question about protecting the very nature of chocolate. Adequate guarantees must therefore be provided for both consumers and cocoa producers. We must demand the following: – a method of analysis allowing the exact content of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter to be determined. This requirement was not specified by the European Commission and has unfortunately not been included in the Council’s common position. However, I still believe that this is an essential condition to ensure respect for the 5% rule; – very explicit wording intended for consumers so that they can buy chocolate in full knowledge of the facts; – the reservation of the name ‘quality chocolate’ for products which contain cocoa butter; – the restriction of alternative vegetable fats to tropical fats not obtained using enzymatic production processes and not originating from genetic engineering; – a study into the impact of such a measure on the export of cocoa by developing countries. I support these demands which are contained in the amendments tabled by the rapporteur. I myself am a consumer who is concerned about the quality and taste of traditional chocolate. I also believe that consumer protection policy, elevated to the rank of a Community policy, does not just involve food safety and the protection of health. It must aim to promote quality food which is part of a more general philosophy of quality of life!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, we all know that, in a larger EU, the ECB must be reformed, but the proposal presented by the ECB has not been sufficiently worked out. It has also been severely criticised. Mr Friedrich’s report is along the right lines but, in common with others in Parliament, I wonder why there is all this hurry. We should stop and reflect and produce a securely founded proposal for the next intergovernmental conference. It is a requirement of democracy that voting rules be fairly simple and comprehensible. Ordinary people too must in fact be able to understand them and how they work. The principle should be one of ‘one member, one vote’. As Mr Huhne pointed out, the important requirement of efficiency can be met in an enlarged EU. Commissioner, we must prevent an unduly divided Europe. A division into A, B and even C teams is not acceptable. The ECB must demonstrate greater openness, with public reporting of discussions and votes. That is a requirement that cannot be abandoned. Finally, we must in fact also strengthen Parliament’s role.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the precautionary principle has become one of the citizen’s greatest allies in defending public health and the environment. But there is still a long way to go in perfecting this principle. First of all, it is still typically European: on the other side of the Atlantic this instrument is seen as obscurantist and even mediaeval. Yet the way the European Union itself uses it is both unclear and even irrational. Sometimes it overuses it, cheapening it, and at other times it uses it too little and provokes our indignation. That is why I regard this Commission proposal, enriched by Mrs Patrie’s report, as being so important. By establishing clearly when and how the precautionary principle should be applied, it clarifies its use at a European level, making it more credible, and it mandates the European negotiators in the next round of the World Trade Organisation to inscribe the precautionary principle as basic and universal. But allow me to denounce what I see as a flagrant example of the lack of coherence in the use of the precautionary principle in the European Union: I am talking about mobile telephones. It is incomprehensible that the European Union should remain insensitive to the dozens of independent scientific studies that point to the possible risk posed by mobile telephones to human health. We might even ask ourselves whether this inertia does not derive from the fact that the majority of mobile phone manufacturers are European companies. Only yesterday in Lisbon, the American professor, George Carlo, who for the last seven years has been entrusted by the Food and Drugs Administration with a study on the effect of the radiation on human health, revealed at first hand that there is the risk that the use of mobile phones might promote the appearance of brain tumours, Alzheimer’s disease and skin lesions. Under these circumstances, I invite the Commission to apply the precautionary principle to mobile phones and to draw particular attention to the dangers of their use by children.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, despite the differing undertones, I believe that there is a general consensus within the European Parliament and agreement on the generally positive remarks made by Mr Patten. In the few seconds available to me, I would like to stress the point raised by almost all the speakers concerning the minimal and politically weak role of Europe. Europe is being called upon to have greater involvement, not just so that it is seen to be having some part to play or so that it can steal some of the limelight from the United States but because, in my opinion, there is a pathological dimension to the US intervention, not only in the one-sided view it takes on issues concerning the Middle East and countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria, but also in the policies it has adopted which give very little consideration to the basic principles of international law – policies which the European Union could promote much more fundamentally, aggressively and forcefully based on UN decisions adopted thus far. In this sense, I believe that certain issues, such as that of Israel’s withdrawal from the territories it has occupied since 1967, are key issues in which Europe could play its part in generating a more positive driving force.

Political group: GUE-NGL
It is incompatible with the subsidiarity principle and proximity principle that the 626 Members of the European Parliament should pronounce upon what vision of the family and what legislation affecting the family the 15 Member States and the twelve candidate states’ national parliaments should arrive at. In solemn speeches and addresses, such as that given this week in the European Parliament by the Prime Minister of the country currently holding the presidency of the Union, Portugal, the wealth of Europe’s different cultures, traditions, languages and national identities has been emphasised time after time. To then state that the family’s – and, therefore indirectly, children’s – legal position should be standardised throughout Europe, as proposed in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the present resolution, constitutes a basic offence against the national right to legislate and against the EU’s own subsidiarity principle, as formulated in the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. In our capacity as Swedish , we shall, of course, be continuing our work in the Swedish Parliament aimed at establishing a basic legal position where the family and marriage between men and women are concerned. This is with a view to making our country’s legislation more friendly to families and children and out of an active desire to support stable and long-term parental relationships which can meet children’s needs for security, care and socialisation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, in reply to Mr Langen, I would say this. With your usual vehemence you are concealing your own failure, because I would remind you that you renounced your own resolution of 2001, which was in favour of a framework directive, and in January you were forced to accept the fact that we were reiterating our demand for a legislative act by means of the codecision procedure. Do not try, then, to conceal your failure. Mr Patten, you are a diplomat and you know the meaning of words. You talked about confusion. Yet where is that confusion, when the Commission, in its Green Paper, is completely vague on the fundamental issue of funding, and when now, just a few weeks before the end of the debate, it tells us that it is now going to organise consultations on funding? Where is the confusion? Where is transparency? Where is democracy? The only thing that we ask of you is not to organise consultations on financial compensation today, but to produce a text which corresponds to the demands of civil society and of the European Parliament. The present text, which you will be presenting to the Commission in three days’ time, does not correspond to those demands. You also talked about certainty, legal certainty. That is all well and good, but there is a misunderstanding here. In effect, the Monti text will improve legal certainty in the sense that the rules will be clearer, but they have also been tightened up as regards the financial compensation which is the subject of this text. There will be greater certainty, but in the final analysis there will be fewer possibilities for funding public services. That is the content. Do not try to deceive us about the content. You talk about exemptions. All services of general economic interest are social in nature. Those which did not need to provide notification will be obliged to do so. At this very moment the social housing organisations are in the process of indicating to the Commission that the Commission will be obliging them to notify what was not notified previously. So much for making things more certain. Finally, will you please indicate, especially in the White Paper, whether or not you will now agree to prepare a legal act via the codecision procedure. It is, after all, an elementary principle of good democracy to answer yes or no after so many years.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms, I would first of all like to express my regret, as has Mr Ceyhun, that the budget does not truly reflect the priority that the Commission and the Council claim to give to the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. It is all well and good to affirm a priority, but this priority must also be followed up by concrete action. Yet, the appropriations for the area of freedom, security and justice are increased by less than the average level of increase for internal policies. Why is this, Commissioner? I would like to say that the PPE Group supports the amendments by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms proposed by the rapporteur in the crucial area of immigration and asylum policy. I would like to know if the Commission and the Council are prepared to support us in this direction. It is the first time that all the instruments of an active and balanced policy for managing migratory flows have been identified and strengthened by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms. We want to improve the ways of predicting migratory flows more accurately by providing increased subsidies for the European Migration Observatory. We want to improve control at external borders. We support the increase in resources for cooperation with third countries. We support the increase in appropriations designed to support integration efforts for immigrants who have settled legally in Europe and we also support the increase in resources set aside for the European Refugee Fund, although we regret that, in the draft budget and preliminary draft budget, these resources have been reduced in comparison to last year. I would like to know if the Commission and the Council are prepared, in these matters that are strategic not only from a point of view of the development of the European Union, but also from the point of view of the way in which our fellow citizens perceive them, to increase the resources set aside in these different areas. I have one last question to put to the Commissioners and the Council. Last year, the European Parliament put aside EUR 5 million in the budget for use by Europol in combating terrorism. Why has the Commission waited nine months before proposing a legal basis? Is the Council prepared – yes or no – to accept this legal basis and to ensure that these appropriations can be used effectively?

Political group: PPE-DE
If, following the floods that engulfed Central Europe this summer, the earthquakes in Turkey, Greece and recently in Italy, there were still a need to demonstrate the necessity of an aid fund for victims of disasters, the news of the sinking of the Prestige should finally convince us. Although this Solidarity Fund is a necessary guarantee, it is not a sufficient one, however. Providing aid to the victims of such disasters should not prevent detailed consideration of their causes, our production methods and economic orientations. On the contrary, it should encourage us to radically question our economies of profit! These economies produce small profits for shipowners registered in Panama, recruiting Filipinos and flying the flag of Gibraltar! But personal and family tragedies, incalculable losses for the European and international communities caused by each sinking of an illegal tanker, destroying the socio-economic fabric of the coasts for years and damaging ecosystems and marine biodiversity for centuries! What I am calling for is more than a solidarity fund, but the creation of a European bank for environmental protection and restoration, which is permanent and one step ahead of environmental disasters, so that the recent Prestige disaster is the last warning shot for these attacks on the environment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I just wanted to say that I hope – as I trust Mr Rübig does too – that this report can be discussed in plenary as soon as possible, as it certainly should be.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, speaking on behalf of the Group and the British Conservatives, the Burmese military regime, which euphemistically calls itself the 'state peace and development council', is a narco-dictatorship financed by heroin that brutally exploits and terrorises its own people. This includes forced labour, persecution of dissidents, forced relocation, conscription of child soldiers, as well as rape of ethnic minority women and children by government troops. These crimes are not committed by rebels or hidden guerrilla forces. No! The people of Burma suffer at the hands of their own government soldiers. There are 1 350 political prisoners still in jail in Burma, subjected to inhumane conditions, while the country's political hope – Aung San Suu Kyi – lingers under house arrest. It is simply intolerable that EU Member States remain one of Burma's biggest investors and trading partners. The EU common position on Burma must be strengthened. Sanctions must enter into force if the regime does not take meaningful steps towards the restoration of democracy. The common position will be reviewed in 2004, but the Council should also ensure that the situation in Burma is reassessed in June 2004. If these meaningful steps, such as the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other detained members of the National League for Democracy Party, as well as tripartite dialogue between the NLD ethnic minority leaders and Burma's authorities, have not taken place, sanctions should be implemented with immediate effect. Sanctions should include the following measures: preventing EU companies and citizens from investing in Burma; banning imported goods and services from enterprises owned by the military, military personnel and their associates; banning the import of strategically important goods from sectors of the economy under monopoly, such as gems and timber; and banning international financial transfers and transactions either by a citizen or an entity of an EU Member State. I call upon other ASEAN states to cooperate with the EU on this issue and to exert greater pressure on the Burmese regime to take the necessary steps towards democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I must congratulate Mrs Gillig on her good work and her balanced approach to this important report. I believe that we are living in a global world, an information and technology society, and that what we want to achieve is a society with a dynamic, highly developed economy that creates more and better jobs. Hand in hand with this economic buoyancy, however, go sustainable development and social cohesion. In the European Union, we benefit from a social model – the European social model – that has been developing for the past 40 years and which has given rise to what we call our “social acquis”, an important legacy, which includes the free movement of workers, gender equality, health and safety at work, the fight against social exclusion and poverty, etc. These principles have also been given form in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the first chapter of which concerns dignity and the fourth concerns solidarity. Globalisation, however, involves further regulation of economic and trade relations and also, at the same time, new risks. These new policies must in no way constitute a barrier to those practices and ideas, but rather, must contribute to social development and to promoting respect for fundamental rights. In the terminology or ideology of the ILO, freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the prohibition or abolition of all forms of forced labour, the elimination of child labour and the absence of discrimination with regard to employment, have been described as fundamental rights. Commissioner, I believe that the application of these rules and their distribution, which should act as an important model for the candidate countries, must constitute a priority for the Commission in its interinstitutional cooperation with the Council and the Member States. I also believe that social dialogue will be a suitable instrument for applying and distributing the principles of our European social model.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are talking about e-mails, spamming and a wide range of other subjects. I think that we should distinguish between three main areas, i.e. from business to business, from business to customer and from customer to customer. Then we should start thinking about principles. I do not believe that a separate solution is necessarily required for each type of technical communication. We are all familiar with the idea that you can attach a sticker to a mailbox. We have all learned to use the telephone, mobiles, sms, and e-mail. I think that the real challenge now is to think about how we want to use this technology and this range of information and advertising opportunities in future. Of course, it is important to take values into account here. I know people who say: I want to receive as much information as possible in a wide range of areas. I want to be able to decide for myself what I keep and what I throw away. There are others who say: I only want to receive the information which I have requested myself. We are also familiar with this concept with regard to debt payable to, and debt collectible by, the creditor. I think we should discuss this point in detail as well. As regards cyber war and cybercrime, we should focus on three main points. We should step up research and development in this area, especially in Ispra near Milan. I think there is a great deal of work to be done in this area, especially as regards security in the Commission and the Parliament. We should think about the type of education and training we can offer in this field, e.g. at colleges of higher education and through university departments. I think that action is needed here. We must also think about the type of security infrastructure which should be available in the hardware and software fields in future. Finally, I should like to say that a separation of powers is also important. The prosecution services, the courts and the operators must work together to ensure that these systems are not abused.

Political group: PPE-DE