GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on behalf of the Legal Committee, for which I had the pleasure of being rapporteur, I would like to warmly welcome the rapporteur’s well-balanced resolution. In my opinion, the rapporteur has succeeded in sending out three signals in the report: to our worldwide partners, a signal of the resolve of the European Union; to our people, a signal for a human face to globalisation; and to our citizens, a signal of the parliamentary dimension of the WTO process. In this resolution, the Parliament is giving the Commission full backing for Seattle. Our message to our partners is that we are solidly behind our negotiating leaders in Seattle – as solidly as the European Alps, I would say. All the participants should be aware of this. Our second signal is to the people who sceptically oppose globalisation. We want to give the markets a worldwide framework as well. We can and we desire to bring about globalisation. The market system will keep pace with its global development and so we are following a liberal and antiprotectionist tendency. The losers in globalisation or those who support it should know that they have an advocate. Finally, we would like to state quite clearly that this Millennium Round also has a parliamentary dimension. This is indispensable because it is no longer just about the reduction of tariffs and quotas; it is also about elementary matters such as social concern, environmental protection and fair competition. We should also make this clear to the non-governmental organisations. The place for political debate on the Millennium Round in Europe is the European Parliament. The governments are not negotiating this with non-governmental organisations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, although a lot has been said in today’s debate about threshold values, and about their being politically arbitrary, I would like to emphasise how important it was for this House, at first reading, to specify a figure of 0.5%, even though many were not happy about it. The fact is that, if this figure of 0.5% had not been hammered out and adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, we would not have such a rigorous Common Position and also the present basis for negotiating an acceptable compromise on co-existence. The second point I would like to address is that I do not think it is very fair for us to be now acting as if we were about to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetically modified organisms. (Applause) We know for a fact that we do not have the option of saying ‘no’, whether to GMOs or to many chemicals and other products. That is one reason why I campaigned for the most stringent conditions in the authorisation process and for comprehensive labelling. Mrs Flemming’s criticism was that the method of labelling was politically dishonest. I would ask her – although she is no longer here – whether not labelling something that was 100% composed of GMOs would mean that we were being more politically honest with consumers. I believe that the European public are perfectly grown-up enough to come to their own opinions on this, and also that biotechnology cannot but become more credible and be taken more seriously if it does not hide behind badly-framed rules on labelling. To those who draw attention to their energetic campaigning for labelling as ‘GMO-free’, I have always said that the fact that products are ‘GMO-free’ can be indicated by additional labelling. We cannot conceal from consumers the fact that genetically-modified organisms are everywhere. I believe that we have to stress the fact, and bring it to people’s attention, that this stance was friendly only to industry and not to the consumer.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission’s initiative on presenting this regulation intended to unify the principles for recording taxes and social contributions is very appropriate. In order for the accounting methods of the different Member States to be homogenous, as the rapporteur has pointed out, they must use the same criteria. It is true that, in accounting terms, both the cash receipt criterion and the income criterion can be allowed, but it is also true that the former allows for less juggling of the figures intended to distort the true accounts situation of a country. In short, the cash receipt criterion makes it more difficult to indulge in that accounting trickery which used to be known euphemistically as ‘creative accounting’. It is true that the use of those systems has allowed, for example, certain countries to fulfil the Maastricht criteria, but it is also true that their abuse can distort the picture of a country’s true accounts. As you know, accounts which do not offer a true picture can be called anything but accounts. The income criterion, if it is not corrected, for example, by means of the obligation to make provision for non-payment, is an inadequate criterion. The rapporteur mentioned a debate which occurred in Spain which, in short, resulted from the government claiming P 750 000 million in 1997 as social security income, which was theoretically owed but which was clearly never going to be collected. Thanks to this manipulation of the accounts, to this ‘creative accounting’, the deficit criteria for joining the first phase of economic and monetary union were complied with. Obviously, this juggling of accounts will not be possible if the Commission’s proposal is approved. It is perhaps for this reason that the Spanish Members from the PPE Group have presented certain amendments and have tried to delay the approval of this report. It is not a question of revising now what was done in the past. Ladies and gentlemen, what is done is done. It is a question of demanding, from now on, greater rigour; it is a question of demanding that accounting figures reflect the true picture of a country’s accounts. We therefore approve of the Commission’s proposal but we do not approve the PPE’s proposal, which is intended to delay the entry into force of this regulation, or the amendments of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which, since it considers that the regulation amounts to an amendment rather than a mere clarification, in reality delays its entry into force. Ladies and gentlemen, if rigour in accounting is demanded, it should be so from the outset.

Political group: PSE
I do not want to enter into the discussion of large and small countries. However, I have two specific questions. Did I hear the Commissioner correctly when he said that we have actually known since June 2001 from inspectors that nitrofen had been found. Why did rapid alert not work? This is my first question. My second question concerns the assertion of consumer protection. In my view, this presupposes strong and independent consumer protection organisations. Especially in consideration of the nitrofen scandal, this also presupposes additional measures, particularly with a view to new countries joining. What will the Commissioner do about supporting strong and independent organisations in the candidate countries? I would be interested to find out.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sure the Commissioner would agree that writing the report is the easy bit. The practical implementation is the difficult bit. When this rapid reaction force actually comes together, will it work in certain cases at a regional basis as well as an individual nation basis? There are situations, such as that in the Horn of Africa, which cover more than one state. The problems in the Great Lakes region cover a number of countries. It would be useful if you could link these problems on a regional basis and act from that point. Would the Commissioner agree with that?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, it does feel a little odd to be debating Swedish alcohol policy today in the European Parliament, for that of course is really what this report is about. Before the referendum on EU membership, the Swedish Government solemnly promised that Swedish alcohol policy would be maintained unaltered. Now, the Social Democratic Government, together with the Party and the Moderates, has given an informal promise, as the Commission’s text puts it, to approve the Commission’s proposal gradually to abolish the restrictions on imports of alcohol and tobacco so that these no longer exist by the year 2003. In the long term, phasing out the rules on imports means phasing out Swedish alcohol policy. Doing so will, in fact, put a big strain on alcohol policy which is based entirely upon high prices for consumers, that is to say a high tax on alcohol. Four parties in the Swedish Parliament oppose the Commission’s and the Government’s line: the , the Liberals (whom we have just heard speak), the Centre Party and the . These parties are demanding that the Government should stand for, and argue in favour of, keeping the Swedish derogation for as long as the Council has not unanimously taken another decision. It is extremely important to clarify the EU’s own policy on this question. What ought the Court of Justice of the European Communities to have said? As Mr Maaten is very carefully intimating, this is not merely a question of the internal market but also a health issue. Alcohol and tobacco are the factors which cause, for example, the greatest health problems within the EU, major costs to society and great suffering to individuals. Article 152 and Article 95.3 of the Treaties talk of how important it is to have a high level of protection, and Article 30 in actual fact permits restrictions on imports, partly on the grounds of people’s health. Sweden has chosen another method, a successful method where alcohol policy is concerned. We have less harm caused by alcohol than most countries in the world, and very low alcohol consumption compared with other EU countries. I do not know whether it is cause for laughter or for tears, but it is certainly worth noting that, as recently as last year, the Member States approved another European action plan for alcohol, prepared by the World Health Organisation. According to this plan, States should impose more tax on alcohol, and there should also be higher minimum taxes on alcohol within the EU. This is recommended as a part of public health strategy. Why dismantle Sweden’s alcohol policy when the EU’s public health strategy points in the same direction with a view to reducing the harm caused by alcohol?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the arrest of the President of the Nicaraguan Court of Auditors is indeed extremely worrying. This is a case of someone who is currently in prison just as presidential elections are about to be held in Nicaragua. We feel that the European institutions must now draw attention to this matter. We will be approving next year’s budget with considerable amounts earmarked for the plan for the reconstruction of Nicaragua after the damage caused by hurricane Mitch, and I think that our role must be to support and uphold democratic institutions, which are seeking to ensure that the rules are properly observed. Therefore, Madam President, we feel that for all of these reasons, given the situation, we must adopt this matter for a topical and urgent debate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we are about to vote on one more step down a new road, begun in mid-1995, when, like anything new, it met with quite a lot of criticism and quite a lot of reluctance. Fortunately, that criticism and reluctance is now a thing of the past; unfortunately, however, we still hear some reservations, like those voiced in Parliament just now. I think we need to realise that what we are doing is actually forestalling the fears expressed here, with an agreement which, in this case, is purely about trade. So we are forestalling these fears about Europe losing ground in Mexico against the exporting power of the United States. What is more, this agreement means we are also strengthening the country’s democratisation process. As a result of that 500 year-old meeting of civilisations, Mexico is a country culturally and politically bound to Europe. But politically and geo-politically, the fundamental weight has essentially lain with the United States, its powerful neighbour to the North. And until these agreements start to bite, the hegemony of the United States in terms of economics, trade and investment will remain virtually absolute. But Mexico has also made great progress on human rights. It has been granted permanent observer status at the OECD and in 1999 it reformed its constitution to grant autonomy to its National Commission on Human Rights So, for both economic and political reasons, we urge approval of this agreement.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, if you would be good enough to take an interest in the debate, ladies and gentlemen, in our efforts to construct a common foreign and security policy we must not lose sight of the fact that, in the future, as in the present and the past, the European Union will certainly face the risk of its forces becoming involved in armed action. Let us not be under any illusion: if this were to happen, it would never be in a ‘clean’ war. No one is in a better position than a soldier to know that a war will always be ‘dirty’ and that, despite advances in technology, mankind will never be able to kill off all evil people just by pressing a button if only because it will find it impossible to tell the good from the bad with any degree of certainty. War will always be dirty and will always be an evil, but it could be ‘the lesser of two evils’, if it is only embarked upon in the aim of achieving a political objective that cannot be achieved through any other means. To quote Clausewitz, ‘War is only the continuation of politics by other means.’ It must, therefore, be ended as soon as its political objective is achieved and must not be embarked upon if there is no chance of achieving this objective. What is the objective of the war we have just embarked upon in Afghanistan? Everyone can see that it is to enable the Afghan people to rid themselves of a regime that has proved its barbarity. This seems today to be not only desirable, but also possible. We are sensitive to the suffering that this war is inflicting on the population and hope, therefore, that this objective is achieved as quickly as possible. We must therefore understand that a halt to hostilities, even a temporary one, would only strengthen the position of the Taliban. Let us show ourselves to be capable, having learned from the unfortunate experience of the Gulf war, of seeing it through to the end, in other words, to the establishment in Kabul of a regime that is acceptable to all Afghans. Let us show that we are capable of ensuring that country’s gradual return to peace and stability. To this end, many of us hope that the European Union will give its support to the negotiations currently taking place under the auspices of the United Nations, between the former king, Zaher Shah and the opposition’s representative. I would have liked to hear the personal opinion of Commissioner Patten on this matter. I realise that he is not present to be able to give an answer, and so I ask you, Mr Lamy, whether you would be good enough to give us your personal reaction to this idea. Thank you.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, as you heard from our Group chairman earlier in the debate, the EPP visited Berlin last week. Before leaving, I and some colleagues were able to visit Potsdam where of course the conference took place where President Truman, Prime Minister Churchill – bizarrely replaced by Mr Atley mid-conference – and Marshal Stalin agreed to confirm the Yalta division of Europe. The Swedish Presidency, as we have heard during the debate, has raised high hopes that we may achieve over the next six months the restoration of a unified Europe, but I believe the time for rhetoric has passed and what we are all looking for now are results. I wonder if four questions could be transmitted to the Swedish Presidency. First of all, does it intend to convene a council or a special meeting to which the government representatives of the candidate countries would be invited, not only to facilitate the negotiations, but to give the important signal to the public that enlargement is not merely a political exercise, a mirage, a constantly distant objective, but that we are genuinely making the progress which is required? Secondly, could the bureaucratic negotiations be tempered by an understanding of the past? It does seem cruelly difficult in a sense that the way the enlargement process is presented is merely a question of conforming to some technical acquis, ignoring, perhaps, the specific difficulties that the Baltic Republics and other Central and Eastern European countries faced under the Soviet system. With the timetable which we have set ourselves: does the Swedish Presidency agree that this necessitates transitional periods, and, finally, can we confirm that no new hurdles will be placed in the path of the candidate countries. Clearly today it has been Sweden's day. We all very much hope that in six months' time in Gothenburg, once again, it will not only be Sweden's day, but Europe's day.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, until recently, Ethiopia and Eritrea were locked in war. Fortunately, that is now over, and this proud and wonderful Ethiopian people can once again start deciding on its own fate. Sadly, we are forced to note that human rights are being violated, that people are being tortured and locked up in prisons at random, and that students are calling for academic freedom, to no avail. This is painful. As international community, we have concluded a partnership deal. We will sign this as ‘the Cotonou Agreement’. In that document, we aim to establish good relations by entering into a dialogue with each other. This also applies specifically to Ethiopia, a country which time and again appears on the list of countries which quality for emergency aid. I hope that we, along with Ethiopia, can now finally turn over a new leaf, and that Ethiopia will be prepared – and I believe we should press for this, Commissioner – to free the people who are behind bars at present, because they are human rights activities, namely Messrs Woldemariam, Nega and Lidetu Ayalew, to allow students to return to their campuses in complete freedom and to observe the fundamental freedoms.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The question of safety of nuclear fuel shipments is an urgent one. At this very moment two shipments of nuclear fuel which were rejected by Japan because of the falsification of safety data by BNFL are approaching the shores of Europe, and will enter the narrow confines of the Irish Sea. The movement of this dangerous cargo at this time is spitting in the face of the victims of September 11. These ships are not capable of withstanding a terrorist attack, and they are not capable withstanding a fire. They are an invitation to terrorists to hijack material for the making of a nuclear bomb. We now have the ludicrous situation of the nuclear industry shopping dangerous radioactive material around the planet. The convention should not be seen as giving a green light to the nuclear industry for such trafficking of deadly material. I urge the Irish Government to take action under the Convention to stop these shipments. The Convention recognises that any State has the right to ban imports into its territory of foreign spent fuel and radioactive waste. This should also apply to the coast waters of the Irish Sea which are already dangerously polluted with radioactive waste. - Jackson report (A5--0259/2002)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, our relations with Turkey should promote democracy, stability and consistency. The path to those goals is partly by way of social and economic development, and the way to social and economic development is partly by means of foreign investment. The Union’s finance package will be an incentive to further investment in Turkey and, in the process, will also promote and consolidate democracy and human rights. We have seen this strategy succeed in former dictatorships in Southern Europe, we shall see it work in Eastern and Central Europe, and it ought also to work in Turkey. Parliament should support this strategy, and we should, at the same time, insist that, before there can be any question at all about membership negotiations, the Copenhagen criteria should be met as these relate to democracy and human rights. Finally, I would emphasise the need to rebuild the thousands of Kurdish villages razed to the ground. This ought to be an express priority in our policy on Turkey, and we must insist that the Turkish Government too make it a high priority. In the same way, we must insist that the rights of the Kurdish minority are respected, just as the rights of minorities are respected in the countries of the Union and in the other candidate States.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, three months ago there was a coup in Fiji. Hostages were taken in the coup, and the press and politicians the world over have taken a stance on this. Now it is over: negotiations have been held, the hostages have been freed and the coup has been over for some time. I wonder what further urgent comments the European Parliament should now have to make on this. In my view this contravenes Rule 50 and Annex III of our Rules of Procedure. That is why we are requesting the deletion of this item from the list of topical and urgent subjects.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, paragraph 26 of the legal opinion clearly states that in relation to the investigation of whether directives were properly applied, they 'almost certainly are or will be before the national court and hence outside the permitted mandate of the Committee'.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. I would like to respond to Mr Perry's challenge and confirm that all the Labour members in the European Parliament are committed to principles! (Laughter) * * *

Political group: PSE
Mr President, just before Christmas we had the annual Brussels pantomime, otherwise known as the Council of Fisheries Ministers, which deliberated on catch quotas for 2004, along with longer-term recovery measures for cod. For the second successive year the outcome for Scots coastal and island communities was a disaster. While increasing haddock quotas, which was welcome, the Council limited the Scots fleet to only 15 days at sea, and also restricted access to certain key areas. That is likely to bankrupt many boats. Incredibly the UK Government-led ministerial team actually volunteered Scotland for this suicidal package! It is little wonder that many Scots have now completely lost faith in the CFP. I am calling on the European Commission to look again at this package and to accept that the unworkable and discriminatory nature of its regulation must be re-examined.

Political group: Verts-ALE