GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, General De Gaulle spoke of the 'paix des braves' i.e. the peace of the brave, in the era of Franco-German reconciliation, by which he meant that patriots on both sides had been able to achieve a lasting settlement. That is exactly what has happened in Macedonia. Therefore, I also believe that this reconciliation is sustainable, but that the government, which has very courageously found a solution to the university issue and to many other issues, needs visible signs of its success, and powerful support, else peace throughout the region will be under threat. That is why it is so important, firstly, to find a solution to the name problem. When Greece, of all countries, again puts forward a proposal to call it Slavo-Macedonia, it really is asking for trouble, because that is precisely what the Albanians would regard as being another example of exclusion tactics. Secondly, I take the view that it is very important to quickly bring the stabilisation agreement to a successful conclusion, and thirdly, I believe that it is very important to support Macedonia as a role model in the region, so that it has a stabilising effect on its neighbouring countries. It is also imperative for free, country-wide elections to be held as soon as possible in Kosovo, in order to ensure that forces with unequivocal democratic legitimacy come to power there – and not just at local level – which will truly have the interests of the Kosovo Albanians at heart. I am sure this would defuse no small number of problems in Macedonia, too. I feel Macedonia has every chance of becoming a type of Switzerland of the South-East, and we should give it massive support on this journey, and reject anything that could lead to a relapse into nationalism and chauvinism, which, I am sorry to say, certain forces in the country are currently trying to provoke for tactical reasons.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, now that we have discussed the question of world-wide negotiations in great detail, of course we have to optimise our own strategy. I am pleased then, that the Commissioner finally wants to propose appropriate strategies. At the moment, I rather have the feeling that our actions are relatively selective and ad hoc and not really purposeful. What we really need is an integrated strategy on which we will base our decision as to which industry-specific measures we should take. I would like to come back to the idea of voluntary agreements. The gist of the Commission’s statement is that we should call on everyone to sign up to voluntary agreements. This will not allow us to state precisely where our priorities lie and what conditions are necessary to achieve them. I reiterate Parliament’s continual demand to specify what measures are required for each industry and how they should be applied.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the modification of the Fourth Protocol, laying down the conditions for fishing between the EU and Greenland, is a step in the right direction, as its guiding principles are truth, transparency and reciprocity. As you say, Commissioner, we no longer have paper fish or virtual fish. We can, accordingly, establish a relationship between the EU’s financial contributions and the fish that can actually be caught, because there are fish to be caught. I therefore welcome this modification and Mrs Miguélez Ramos’s report, which is appropriate and well structured. The words in her intervention were similarly welcome, as they enabled us to focus on the central political issue at stake here. I also welcome Commissioner Vitorino’s intervention. His knowledge of fisheries does not surprise me, given that his many talents allow him to speak about fisheries with a remarkable breadth of knowledge. Here was me thinking that all he knew about fish was what he found on the plate ... Seriously, though, I hope that Commissioner Vitorino can come and teach us about particle physics and molecular biology (laughter); he has the talent and intelligence to do this. Returning, however, to the political question raised by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, the removal of the Spanish and Portuguese from the Greenland fishing zones is both unjust and ‘anti-historic’ – now that ‘the destiny of history’ has gone out of fashion, please allow me to use the term ‘anti-historic’. If the Spanish and Portuguese were the first to discover fishing routes across the globe, then they must also have discovered the fisheries in Greenland, from where they have now been banned. We now have the chance to rectify this injustice, and this opportunity to rectify injustice consists of allowing quotas not taken up by the States holding them to be used by Portugal and Spain. This must not mean that these two countries must be subordinate to the authority of the countries holding the quotas. This is not some kind of modern-day feudal law invented alongside the quotas that are assigned to one country, which later passes them on or not to the EU Member State that, within the scope of Community policy, wishes to use them. I therefore wholeheartedly support the position of Mrs Miguélez Ramos that the European Union and the Commission can assign unused fishing quotas to countries wishing to use them, such as Portugal and Spain.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, before I left to come to Strasbourg, I said goodbye to a pensioner – Mrs Lucia Boroni from Mozzanica in the district of Bergamo – who had come to see me off. She asked me, “What are you going to do in Strasbourg?” I said, “I am going to speak on the Thors report.” “But what is this Thors report?” “It is a report which deals with the fact that, soon, a pensioner will be able to turn on the television and see Mr Fatuzzo making a speech in the European Parliament and hear what he says.” “Oh, that is very good,” said Mrs Boroni, and then she asked, “but can I see how many contributions I have made to the Italian National Social Welfare Institution as well? Can I see what my pension will amount to when I retire?” “Of course, Mrs Boroni, this is the future, the future of the citizens. There are no more barriers. You will even be able to see what is happening in the pension companies of other States.” “But I have to live on 700 000 lira a month” said Mrs Boroni. “How will I be able to afford this television of the future?” I have taken the floor to tell you what Mrs Boroni wants: namely for the European Parliament – and I am sure that this was among Ms Thors’ intentions when she wrote her report and I call upon the Commissioner to see to the matter when he issues the directive – to ensure that the less well-off citizens, whether they are pensioners or not, are able to access the new digital television services of the future free of charge.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Solbes, we need more Europe, and the Stability Pact is a tool for building Europe. It is a complex and anomalous tool, not found in textbooks and universities; in fact, it replaces a true economic and budget balance policy on a federal scale. But in order to be effective, such a tool must be credible and based on definite rules and obligations that are respected by all. Changing the rules during the difficult process of convergence, less than one hundred days before the birth of the euro proper, would therefore be a serious mistake. The Stability Pact must not, therefore, be relaxed or have its deadlines or targets changed; any such approach would be merely short-sighted opportunism and disastrous for the building of Europe. The Stability Pact should, rather, be strengthened, improved and made more efficient; targets that only refer to budget balances are no longer enough. Budget balances are a necessary but not sufficient objective, because there will be a growing need to aim at quality in public spending and the medium to long-term sustainability of public finances in the individual euro countries; in this connection, it is sufficient to think of the pension deficit. Commissioner, even a Stability Pact interpreted in the most responsible, far-sighted manner possible would do nothing for the credibility of our currency if there were not a massive acceleration in the process of completing economic union at the same time, with greater genuine convergence, greater social cohesion, greater development, greater liberalisation, and a greater market for services and energy. Though we need therefore to comply with and value the Stability and Growth Pact, as much attention should also be devoted to the subject of the Lisbon agenda. Unfortunately, the Stockholm European Council was a step backwards in this respect. Commissioner, Minister, for the sake of the euro and our Europe, let us avoid similar steps backwards in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this is an excellent occasion to have a discussion on the transatlantic partnership, now that the Iraq conflict is over and the dust is settling in the desert and before the Council and Commission head to Washington at the end of this month. It seems to my group that whereas in the 1980s the security partnership underpinned the transatlantic relationship and we had economic differences, now the economic market and integration on trade and investment are underpinning the transatlantic relationship, while the security side is looking somewhat fragile. Yet, for reasons which they both express clearly, the Council and Commission today see everything in the reasonably short term, rather than providing a longer-term vision of our relationship with the United States. An American diplomat expressed this nicely a few days ago: he said that we, in Europe, are looking at problems from a 2003 perspective: the problems of building the European Union, our foreign policy and the beginnings of an external strategy. The United States, on the other hand, is looking much more to the problems of 2020, with the weapons of mass destruction and a whole range of other things, on a global basis, which we tend not to do. The message which should be sent to the summit is therefore that politics, economics and security policy in the post-Cold War world are all beginning to be closely intertwined. Firstly, as regards politics. Yes, we need to understand each other, as the Council President has said, but surely we need more collaboration, not just in particular instances, such as the war against terrorism: we need a long-term framework to get to grips with that problem and shift the emphasis from a Community of values to a Community of action, dealing with problems of AIDS in the Third World, nuclear proliferation and a range of other things which Europe and America face jointly as global challenges. Secondly, in economics. We know, as the Commissioner has said, that global economic challenges bring us closer together, but surely it is by developing closer linkages, by developing a transatlantic market – much of that is already in place, but we need to add on financial services, the digital economy, competition policy and other things – that we can complete a transatlantic market over the next decade. Thirdly, in security policy, where we have the greatest difficulty, we have to ask the questions: will Europe have the military capability? Does it have the political will ever to emerge as a partner with the United States? In concluding, it seems to me that we need a long-term European strategy to know what we want before we can shape a transatlantic strategy and think on similar terms with the Americans. Secondly, we need a transatlantic summit which takes a strategic view, rather than looking at particular instances and particular problems. Finally, the big idea is this transatlantic market where we need to mobilise our business and political communities and listen to those we represent so that we can shape the world of tomorrow to our mutual benefit.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I apologise for saying that the Group of the had also requested that the vote be postponed, but your coordinator in actual fact came to me and said that you also wished to postpone the issue until the November II part-session instead of taking the vote this evening. Mr Poettering, we have worked together with your people, and the Group of the and the Group of the have agreed on how the report should look. We were united on the central issues and came to an agreement in the negotiations. I submit to what Parliament wants to do, but it is, nevertheless, a matter of an agreement between the Group of the and the Group of the , concerning both my report and the central issues it contains. I must say, therefore, that I am very surprised by this. (Parliament decided to postpone the vote) ***

Political group: PSE
This report takes us back to the question of why we even have a regional policy. In order to reduce disparities between regions, of course. But more especially because, even though at first sight the European market guarantees us improved functioning of the economy, it may also be a source of inequality. Jacques Delors was accustomed to saying that the market was short-sighted and hence the political need to reduce disparities. It is precisely this phenomenon of solidarity which lies behind the European social model, which we are all in favour of, and which gave rise to the idea of economic and social cohesion. This is a real political objective, alongside economic and monetary affairs, drawn up in collaboration with Member States, regions and local communities, with the Commission itself responsible for issuing guidelines in order to show Member States what direction to take in order to achieve the objectives required in the context of programming. This is why I shall support this report, despite regretting the fact that, for timetabling reasons, the European Parliament was only consulted at a very late date on the guidelines intended to assist Member States, regions and local communities in the programming of Objectives 1, 2 and 3. Moreover, I would also urge this House to take into consideration the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, adding a whole raft of thoughts on key areas such as combating social exclusion, support for the social economy and the implementation of the employment strategy. Mrs Schroedter’s report marks a further step towards the transparency and effectiveness of structural aid. It highlights the increasing vital role of all the parties involved, chiefly those involved at a local level, who are the only ones able to define specific requirements and social problems, hence our determination to ensure that the partnerships to be established are true partnerships, which are decentralised and involve all the agents concerned. This is the reason for the request which we are putting forward again to establish a management unit for structural assistance in the Member States, which would coordinate the implementation and administration of aid. In order to do so, the monitoring committees must be opened to include Members of the European Parliament, associations and industrialists concerned by the projects and also civil society. These guidelines represent a step towards the improved effectiveness of Community structural aid. Amended again as such by the Schroedter report, they are a step in the right direction. They also call for a general debate on the future of the cohesion policy after 2006, but that is another subject. In the meantime, let us support this first step.

Political group: PSE
Our colleague, Mr Gahrton, refers in his question to my statements in the Swedish EU election campaign. These have proved to be correct and have also been confirmed not only by the Council here but also by Chris Patten in the Committee hearings. He said that a common EU army would be unnecessary, extremely expensive and directly damaging to relations with the USA. Let me add that we who definitely do not want to see a common EU army and who are not members of NATO would nonetheless, in common with an overwhelming proportion of Sweden’s population, its government and the party I represent, like to see the EU taking more responsibility when it comes to Europe’s peace and security. We also recognise the Cologne resolution which says, amongst other things, that the EU must become better at organising military and civil crisis management. My question to the Council is this: do you share my view that the way to lasting security is mainly through civil, cross-border co-operation and not through military rearmament, that is to say that we ought to follow the Monnet line and not the Maginot line?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to extend a warm welcome to the Spanish Presidency. Prime Minister Aznar, we have great faith in you, and we also wish you every success on the sound plans you have for the coming six months. In my view, an important task is to ensure that the Convention, which is to develop proposals on Europe’s future, gets off to a flying start. It is also important that this be done quickly, and I am pleased to hear it is to be launched as soon as the end of February. I have heard you say that the reform, or deepening, of the European institutions is necessary in order to make a success of enlargement. I could not agree more. I have also heard you call for more co-decision and more transparency. I would like to endorse that too. The European Parliament must become a normal parliament with full legislative powers, and the Council, in its capacity as co-legislator, must become more transparent in its working practices, possibly modelling itself on the German Federal Council. I also support Mr Aznar’s plea for anti-terrorism policy to be accelerated and Europol to be reinforced. Mr Aznar, you are right in saying that tougher action is required to tackle the drugs trade. Together with the trafficking in human beings, the drugs trade appears to be one of the key sources of funding for terrorism. It is high time we clamped down on this evil, and I hope you will receive Dutch support for this. I should like to finish off with an observation with regard to socio-economic policy. You have spoken of the need for more labour mobility. In my country, the Netherlands, there is a labour shortage. There are tens of thousands, and probably even more than one hundred thousand, vacancies for jobs which cannot be filled. The care sector and public transport spring to mind. These sectors are performing badly because of a shortage of labour. Why are European job agencies not being set up to analyse which countries have labour shortages and which have labour surpluses? Surely it should be possible, with the help of brief language courses, to help the millions of unemployed in Germany to find jobs in the Netherlands, for example. If you could do something about this, you would be helping both the countries with labour shortages and those with labour surpluses.

Political group: PPE-DE
I feel compelled to make some comments regarding the storm that struck Europe and, more especially, France. 1 – Although a direct link has not definitely been established between this storm, the greenhouse effect and pollution, these events are, at the very least, a warning of what will happen to us in future if we continue to pollute the atmosphere of our planet so thoughtlessly. 2 – If buildings have been constructed “on the cheap”, in Europe too, and if there has been a preference for overhead electricity networks, often very ugly visually, we are now counting the real, onerous cost of these false economies. 3 – In the measures undertaken to repair the storm damage, we have seen both our weaknesses, our lack of resources and, at the same time, the great solidarity that has emerged and the equally great importance of the concept of “public service” in some of our public companies that are often given a rough time by the dominant ultra-liberal ideology. I should like to salute all the staff of the companies who have worked relentlessly and selflessly to restore services, to re-establish electricity and telephone lines and to rehouse families affected by the disaster. 4 – Finally, if it wants to remain or be close to its citizens, Europe must provide significant financial assistance! The Member States, which are often over-cautious, should provide Europe with the financial means necessary.

Political group: PSE
We would hereby point out that the reason we voted in favour of the original text in Mr Wijkman’s report, A5-0054/2001 paragraph 26 (viii), was not because we want to see common, supranational taxes at EU level. Instead, the reason is because we want the Commission to take account of this issue so that, in the future, we might be able, if need be, to agree upon intergovernmental solutions when it comes to the taxation of fuel.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I know that the Commissioner, whom I would like to take this opportunity to greet, has several times expressed his solidarity with the people of East Timor quite emphatically, but I would like to know if there is in fact a programme of aid for the reconstruction of East Timor yet. This programme is extremely urgent, and I would like to know if it has been quantified and how much the Commission foresees spending on this plan.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I congratulate Mrs Van Lancker, who has managed to broach the thorny issue of rights in the field of sexual and reproductive health with intelligence, understanding and courage. This report, which I think is outstanding, has nevertheless given rise to major discussions and extreme positions. Its most controversial point has undoubtedly been abortion, although the report deliberately starts by stating that abortion must not be encouraged as a method of family planning. Abortion must be seen as the solution of last resort and the report suggests various ways of achieving this. Abortion is, however, a very real social tragedy. The blame, the pain, the physical and mental violence that abortion entails are borne predominantly by women. Consequently, in all Member States of the European Union with the exception of Ireland and Portugal, legal solutions have already been found for society to recognise every woman’s right to be attended by medical specialists in the abortion procedure. The tragedy of undergoing an abortion is enough in itself. It is time for this procedure no longer to be considered a crime and for the public persecution in the courts and in the media to stop! I feel that this report is an act of hope for the women of my country, showing them that we in Europe are fighting for everyone to enjoy equal rights, for there to be tolerance and solidarity, for the hypocrisy to end and for the health and dignity of all women to be protected. Calls for tolerance, respect and solidarity are sometimes met with obscurantism and boundless narrow-mindedness. In Portugal, a referendum on decriminalising abortion, which was not binding because less than one-third of the population voted, was won by the ‘no’ campaign. The situation has gone from bad to worse in the meantime and the proof is that numerous women have already been taken to court, I myself have been bombarded with messages from activists from the ‘no’ campaign to vote against this report, and, to top it all, the so-called ‘pro-life’ association has just instigated legal proceedings against Mrs Van Lancker in Portugal. If this were three hundred years ago, she would have been handed over to the Inquisition! It is sad, but this is still the situation in Portugal, and this is why it so important for us Portuguese to see this report approved and to feel the solidarity of Europe on such a sensitive issue. (Applause)

Political group: PSE