GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Mr Prodi, Europe needs a strong Commission. As intended by the Treaties and the will of the people, the Commission is the driving force of European construction which is like a rock of Sisyphus which we have to push back up to the summit again together after each round of enlargement. We therefore need a strong Commission but one which relies on the support of a parliament. This House is therefore your ally but not one which is too accommodating. You must therefore listen to our opinions, one or two of which I wish to express in my brief speech. Firstly, Mr President, although your two predecessors concentrated on developing an internal market and establishing the single currency, it has been left to you to develop this whole value of citizenship which is at the heart of European construction. You must not allow yourself to be distracted by the sole issue of enlargement, however important this may be. You must go further, towards reconciling the people with Europe, in particular those people who are falling victim to economic, social and, probably, in the future, technological divisions. The promotion of scientific development and new technologies and access for all to these technologies will not be provided by the market or competition. The latter will also not ensure the social proximity and effectiveness of the main community services of health, education, transport, communications, water and whatever else. Your action programme and your objectives are reserved, even silent, specifically on the stimulation of public investment which is needed. This is also the case with the consolidation and financing of the main public and general interest services. This is an absolute priority if you are to reconcile Europe with the people and ensure that the people choose Europe rather than Jörg Haider.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to start with, I could not reply to you in a language other than that which we spoke when we were at school together fifty years ago. First of all, I want to thank you and warmly congratulate you for the particularly successful presidency which the Greek Government has brought to a close. As you have heard from the honourable Members' interventions – and the interventions which do not come from the same political family are more valuable – there is generally a feeling that the Greek Presidency was a great success. Nonetheless, I do not want to refer to the issues already raised, but to another issue: during the Greek Presidency, what you euphemistically refer to as the 'Iraqi crisis' took place. I think that the Greek Presidency took the best possible reaction to the division which the European Union underwent in relation to this issue in convening the Extraordinary European Council in Brussels on 17 February 2003 and with the outcome of that Council. The Greek Presidency is not to blame for the fact that some of the participants did not honour their own signatures before the week was out. I shall continue in German, the language of the country which I represent here in the European Parliament, knowing also that you will not therefore need to wear headphones. (DE) I will confine my comments exclusively to the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy. Firstly, like you we welcome the fact that the military part of the ESDP is now fully ready for deployment and that three operations have already been given the go-ahead or even begun, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Secondly, even with the Convention's proposals, we have not overcome the structural problems with the CFSP and ESDP. The principle of taking decisions by unanimity stands in contradiction to the very concept of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the European Parliament is not involved in this policy, despite being the source of ideas and driving force behind it for many years. Thirdly, the EU/NATO agreements are certainly important and also necessary at this time. However, we already need to start considering how we are going to develop the capabilities that we lack, primarily in terms of transport and reconnaissance. Your defence minister was very open-minded here and I hope that even after the presidency Greece will pursue further initiatives in this field. Mr President-in-Office, you have received the congratulations of this Parliament on your successful Presidency. In 408 days, on 13 August, the Olympic Games which you have undertaken to organise open in Athens. I wish you the same huge success in organising and staging these Games and, most of all, I wish you personally the pleasure, as Prime Minister, of declaring the Games open. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I was disappointed to see that in the decision of Parliament and Council establishing the “Youth” Community action programme, reference to the family has been removed in final conciliation negotiations. This reference, which was accepted by the Culture and Youth Committee as well as Parliament, referred to the need to examine the role of the family among those factors which have promoted and hampered the social integration of young people. The importance of the family in promoting or hampering social integration among youth is clearly recognised within society today, as well as through various studies. The Council of Europe, in its report Coherent and Integrated Family Policies, states, “Families play a primary role in socialisation because they communicate the values, standards, customs and behaviour of the social groups to which their children belong”. It is inexcusable that this reference to the family has been removed. In a report designed to assess and support our young people in the best possible way, the deletion of reference to the family, the single most important influence in a young person’s life, is incomprehensible.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Group of the is satisfied that, at the suggestion of the rapporteur, who is a member of the group, tighter controls are going to be placed on the establishment of port reception facilities for ship-generated waste. In particular, it is important that a tax is imposed on each ship to cover at least 30% of the cost of these facilities. It is not a question of creating ‘ecological boats’ that are able to treat all their waste at sea, essentially by means of incineration. Such conduct, which cannot realistically be controlled, in fact enables antipollution legislation to be bypassed: allegedly incinerated hydrocarbons and domestic waste are discharged into the sea; there is no selectivity and this only adds to the greenhouse effect. These proposals are in line with the proposals of the next marine pollution control Directive, for which I shall be drawing up the report on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Furthermore, they provide for the homogeneous behaviour of ships within European maritime space, and they go some way to establishing the necessary facilities in European ports and to financing these facilities. These provisions must be accompanied by rigorous control and the behaviour of ships must be monitored using the Equasis and Galileo systems, the speedy implementation of which the French Presidency has resolved to promote. - Morillon recommendation (A5-0206/2000)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I originally wanted to say something about the nonsensical procedure that we are going through at this witching hour, but then I saw all the young people who have been listening attentively and with great concentration, and whom, in the meantime, we seem to have lost again. I hope somebody explained to them why it is ... (Interruption) ... that there are so very few Members in the Chamber. That brings me back to the question of whether it makes sense to be here at this late hour. We few Members of this House here present know what we think. We have exchanged views in lengthy discussions in very in-depth preparatory meetings. It dishonours the rapporteur, who has invested so much zeal in this work, to have his words declaimed shortly before midnight to an almost empty Chamber. The Group of the European People’s Party endorses his report. I am grateful to Mr Pittella for his good cooperation. As the problems have been aired, let me draw your attention to just a few points. It is not acceptable for national ministers to rejoice when funds in Brussels are not drawn on. They may well be glad when a few million euros are returned to them and can be used for this or that other purpose, but if that happens, then the Structural Funds, which were set up to benefit the most needy regions in the EU, are failing in their purpose. When we analyse the way funds are administered, we cannot but note with a critical eye the re-emergence of old familiar problems. Although national co-financing creates great problems for some Member States, we have good reasons for wanting to hold fast to the principle of it; we should, on the other hand, abandon excessively complicated and extensive, even sometimes unnecessary requirements in the procedure as a whole. Simplification and clarity, too, can result in stringent and necessary monitoring and even make it easier. This is something for the Commission and the Member States to do. The excessively lengthy planning procedures mean that delays are virtually inevitable. The current state of affairs as regards the outflow of funds is disturbing, but surely no surprise to the actors involved. It will be no simpler after the European Union gains ten new members. That is why there is a need for coordination between the actors to be simplified in order to enable EU funds to be targeted and used in a rational way. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Sacrédeus has, I think, addressed something of essential importance. Byelorussia, or Belarus, will, in a very short time, be one of the European Union's neighbours. What was termed Poland in the Middle Ages was in actual fact a federation consisting of Poland, Lithuania and Byelorussia, each part having equal rights. Lithuania and Poland will, next year or the year thereafter, be able to become members of the European Union, whereas Belarus seems today to be further away than the Democratic Republic of Congo, about which we were speaking earlier. This is a tragedy, responsibility for which lies principally at Mr Lukashenko's door. The people of Belarus played a part in the democracy movement that led to the fall of Communism and helped to bring about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is for that reason that we have to give forthright support to the movement for democracy and human rights in that country, a movement that is supported not only by us but by former human rights campaigners in Prague, Warsaw and elsewhere; we have to send a signal to the people there that we know that they are Europeans, and that they really belong to us. We must, of course, use all democratic and diplomatic means to work towards the OSCE becoming genuinely operational there, to ensure the failure of the attempts at doing away with monitoring and concealing this oppression behind a veil of authoritarian measures. I would, though, be very wary of involving Moscow in this process, as Moscow, being the former colonial power, of course bears some responsibility for what is happening in Belarus today. We have to work together with everyone, including Russia, but I see the European Union as having a special responsibility to make it clear that this European people too will have a place among us, but that the OSCE, and then the Council of Europe, must do their work, and, above all and most crucially, human rights must be made to prevail. That all this should be, as it were, obscured and befogged by one regime, is something we cannot permit. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against Amendments 31 and 37 as the wording would be interpreted to also include a ban on therapeutic cloning, which I support under proper ethical conditions. I do not support the cloning of human beings. - van den Burg report (A5-0364/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
An important European value that we all, whether lay or religious, purport to share is that any experimentation on a human being should only be for their exclusive and direct benefit. We depart from that principle at our peril and here we clearly have departed from it. We cannot experiment on human beings at any stage of their development and we certainly cannot mass-produce embryos for experimentation. The next stage will be commercial exploitation, which our own bio-patenting directive allows for. The UK authorities argue that in spite of ethical doubts the cloning of human embryos is necessary because it is the only way to help patients suffering from various diseases. Many scientists dispute this and recommend more research with adult stem cells to achieve the same results in curing diseases. Can we not get together and find a way of dealing with stem research without experimenting directly on human beings? I hope this House agrees that this is a value that Europe was built on.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Commission has asked for 50% more money for the budget, but the richest Member States want to restrict expenditure to 1% of GNP. Some of the money needed for solidarity with the poorest regions within the current EU and the future enlargement regions can be found by actually putting a stop to persistent fraud. The Commission's annual report for 2002 reports irregularities and fraud cases amounting to EUR 2.12 billion, only EUR 80.6 million of which could be claimed back. In that selfsame year, OLAF, the anti-fraud office, completed 652 inquiries, involving a total loss of EUR 937 million. The Eurostat fraud has been excluded from these inquiries, and the Commission has not learnt from past experience that it is preferable for the responsibility for budget and accounts on the one hand and financial inspection and fraud control on the other hand not to be in the hands of one and the same Commissioner. Deceit is probably involved in the enormous subsidies – to the tune of EUR 52 million – paid for the export of live cattle to Lebanon. OLAF is accusing journalists of having paid money in order to be able to publish secret fraud information, but cannot substantiate these accusations. External advisory offices, in which former officials are involved, have received EUR 115 million. Consequently, the theme of the 2004 elections will once again have to be the fight against the European Fraud Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs Martens and Mrs Avilés Perea, whose reports, I believe, have produced unanimity, which is very pleasing. I would also like to agree with the other speakers who have highlighted a few specific points in these reports. First of all, I think that they share common ground, and particularly when they demonstrate that the question of poverty, just like the question of violence, are gender-related questions wherever they arise in the world. We are all too used to this, and I have recently heard so much debate on violence in my country, but no one has pointed out that violence is not meted out in the same way by men and by women and on men and on women. I believe therefore that the gender aspect of poverty and violence are important points. I would also like to say that given this difficulty – and there are many other difficulties – but if I think about this particular one, I think that what is in the pipeline in the future directive, Commissioner, which will be based on Article 13 and which will deal with all the questions other than that of employment, the question of the individualisation of rights will be key. What do I mean by the individualisation of rights? These are rights that we give, independently of marital status, to a person. I think that this is our future. And it is important to emphasise that these reports allude to this and that we must, in my view, defend this particular point. We must also defend ourselves at a time when, in my country, a candidate standing in the presidential elections is contemplating making women stay at home – he has said this and he has written this. I think that the question of what we often refer to as conciliation – which I myself do not like to call conciliation – in other words, the organisation, the relationship between what we do at home and what we do with our children, as a family, and what happens in public, whether it be political or professional life, we have a genuine need to organise this. I think that it is also important to highlight this point, whichever country we might discuss. Perhaps all we need to do is to think about the future with the individualisation of rights and the interaction between professional and public life, and then think about this directive as well. Of course, I expect the Commission to put forward its proposals in the very near future, and then we can consider enlargement. We hope that the acquis communautaire will be transposed into national law. We want the transposition of the acquis. We know that it is very difficult. The Baltic countries will soon start the transposition of some Community legislation into their national law and we know that this will be difficult.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, your office informed me today that during this debate I would receive a satisfactory response to my request concerning the disloyalty to Europe shown by Mr Aznar in relation to the war in Iraq. Would you not agree that the disloyalty shown by Mr Aznar is reprehensible? There is abundant proof that Mr Aznar worked actively against the letter of the Council agreement of 17 February. Clearly, he acted disloyally with regard to the common position he was bound by. He acted disloyally in supporting a unilateral, immoral and illegal attack. What can the European loyalty and mutual solidarity we committed ourselves to in the Treaties mean to Mr Aznar? Where was his loyal cooperation? Do you not agree that such disloyalty is reprehensible? Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we should not hush up or ignore the growing disloyalty of Mr Aznar. Over 90% of the people of Spain condemn the disloyalty shown by their Prime Minister. They feel profoundly European and call for the principles of loyalty and solidarity to be defended. After all, these principles are key to our progress in future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr de Miguel, now that we are more or less a family, and in the interminable minute I have to speak for, I am not going to talk to you about immigration. Now it seems that everything you said to our generation about how good immigrants were does not apply to today’s immigrants. On the subject of issuing orders, I would ask you, who order so much by decree, please to ask the President, Mr Aznar, to bring here, to where things are decided, all that power-wielding that surrounds his actions in government in Spain, so that the proposal adopted by the College of Commissioners for the reform of the common fisheries policy does not go ahead, since it is a proposal which will send the shattered Spanish fishing fleet to the bottom of the sea. Prevent your party colleague, Mr Fischler, that friend of the farmers and fishermen of the south, from getting his own way. Do not invite him to Madrid – there are no fishermen, fishing ports or ice factories there. Invite him to Barbate, to Isla Cristina, where there are fishermen. Show him the results of his disastrous negotiation with Morocco and let him imagine what will happen to these European citizens if his proposal goes ahead. If you do not do so, the firmness you demonstrate there will be of little use when decisions are made here. Make a firm commitment against this fisheries proposal during the Seville Council and in that way, in my view, you will have salvaged the Spanish Presidency.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have to say that this reply is entirely unsatisfactory because I am not bothered about addressing the Presidency. I do want to address the Council. At the end of the day, the current Presidency embodies the Council. It is also a question addressed to the Council and the issue is that very often meetings take place these days when we are in Strasbourg and that the press cannot come to Strasbourg. I do believe that the Council will have to realise that the extent of support for the European Union amongst its citizens is of key importance. Finland too, as one of the 15 Member States, is affected by this. So as far as I am concerned, this does not answer my question and I hope that this will be discussed in a broader context within the Council at some stage. Mr President, this bears out once again that it is crazy that we are banished to Strasbourg time and again by the same Council. Indeed, if this was not the case, this problem would not arise. I would like to ask the Finnish President to check with her colleagues in the Council and with all 15 Member States whether this could be taken on board in future?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this is the umpteenth time we have discussed Angola. The war has been going on for twenty-five years; and again we are about to vote on a resolution. Surely we must ask ourselves the question whether sufficient efforts are being made for peace. I welcome the fact that the Swedish Presidency has applied itself to this question and provided a declaration. I wonder, however, whether the two sides – and I mean both the government of Mr dos Santos and UNITA – are not actually doing their level best to prolong the war. This is a war that is fed by a stream of smuggled diamonds and oil: sufficient to buy vast quantities of arms and hold the civilian population hostage. I consider this war to be making a mockery of our civilisation. I should therefore also like to ask that the recommendations again recorded in this resolution, be followed up both by the Commission and by the Council, so that it can be monitored whether the will for peace is really increasing. Of course we welcome the fact that statements have recently been made both by President dos Santos and by the leadership of UNITA expressing the intention to start a dialogue. However, we see that the civilian population is being harassed time and time again. There are the kidnappings by a new movement, again calling itself a rebel movement. There are the new minefields. There are the attacks on towns and the constant attacks on the civilian population; and those who live in those parts know that meanwhile in the bars on the borders the soldiers are trading with each other. What cynicism!

Political group: Verts-ALE