GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President-in-Office, the vulgar and tendentious attacks by certain elements of the foreign press – and some Italian elements too, I have to admit – which have been echoed in this House in some Members’ speeches and then in that pathetic demonstration, have given the start of this Italian Presidency an unnecessarily polemic tone. Paradoxically, I believe all of this is a good sign, Mr Berlusconi: remember that malice of this kind was loudly voiced in 2001 and only contributed to your resounding victory in those elections. I should like to hope that, after all this initial noise, the success of the Italian Presidency will be judged not on the private affairs of Mr Berlusconi the citizen or on your conflict of interests – which you are trying to resolve and I hope will resolve soon – but on your ability to impart that much-needed leadership and impetus to the construction of Europe, and today’s programme speech was an excellent first step in that direction. As a member of the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I am sure that in this area, the area that concerns me, some problems can be resolved, such as mending the damaged relations with the United States. Progress will be made on other issues, such as the Middle East, where Italy has already shown great diplomatic skill, or the assimilation of the new countries that are about to join, who quite rightly see in Mr Berlusconi a defender of their interests and their principles, a political leader who, unlike others, has understood that there is no contradiction between European commitment and Atlantic solidarity. Having said that, Mr Berlusconi, I believe your task remains a difficult one, because there will be no concessions for you: every decision, every gesture you make will be subjected to close appraisal and scrutiny, and you will not be forgiven for any false move. However, this is not the first time you have undergone this kind of examination: good luck, Mr Berlusconi!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in the discussion of the various parts of the Auto-Oil programme, we in the European Parliament have pressed for a tightening up of the requirements. We ought to continue to do so, both now and in the future. As a result, we in the Confederal Group of the shall be voting for just about all the amendments from rapporteur Lange. We think it is our role to ensure in this situation that the best possible technology is used as early as possible. I am also convinced that some of the pressure which has been exerted on us as Members of the European Parliament in connection with this issue has exaggerated the difficulties involved in adjusting to the demands made in this recommendation for second reading. I am rather hesitant about one section. This is section 11, about whether a time limit should now be set for financial incentives in connection with environmentally friendly vehicles. However, this is a minor question in this context. I should like to thank the rapporteur for producing a very good piece of work on a matter which is technically quite complicated.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, like Mr Karas, I am an adherent of an ecologically-adjusted market economy, and consequently, a strict liability regulation does not worry me. After all, that can have a significant preventive effect and can, as such, be justified. However, we should not, in my view, forget that in the proposal we are discussing this evening, we are introducing ‘liability without fault’. Some see it as self-evident that there can be liability without fault; personally, I think it is, compared to the traditional liability theory of the continental legal tradition, a very radical instrument, and it is precisely because it is so radical that we have to treat it with caution. It is precisely because this instrument is so radical that we have to ensure that a number of pre-conditions are in place. Those pre-conditions have to ensure that the regulation is legally certain, that it is practically workable, that it is fair and that it does not interfere too much with innovation and development. I will not list the amendments that are useful in this respect. Everyone who has followed the debate will know that I am talking about, inter alia, the exclusion grounds for licence holders, about the regulation in relation to the state of scientific knowledge, about the exclusion grounds for people who adhere to good agricultural practice and about the replacement of joint liability by proportionate liability. The Manders report, as we have voted on it in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, provides for those pre-conditions, so I must congratulate the rapporteur and our group’s shadow rapporteur on the work and on the team effort. I should like to ask those of my fellow MEPs who have difficulty with the restrictions introduced in the report, and also the Commission in a way – for it, as I understand it, also has difficulty with a number of our amendments – to revisit the concept of liability without fault very carefully, to bear in mind the difficult, serious impact this can have, and to ensure that we will eventually end up with a better regulation which, for economic reasons and reasons of fairness, is showing some clemency. We must naturally ensure that the earth remains viable, but I think that we must also ensure that we have a viable economy, and that we find people who are willing to go into business here. IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the unified Europe, of 25, 27 or 30 States will not be capable of functioning with an institutional system created for a Union of six or 15 Member States. By failing to adopt the Constitutional Treaty, at best we run the risk of a restrained, weak Europe, unable to act in political terms and to be a protagonist on the international stage, and at worst, the political collapse of the Union, that is, a dangerous step backwards with regard to the significant progress made in recent years. This is why I am convinced that the Irish Government’s action, unobtrusive but effective, should be supported. We certainly need to be quick, and sign the Treaty before the European Parliament elections, but we absolutely must do things properly too, as Mr Giscard d'Estaing said yesterday to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. In short, we cannot accept watered-down compromises which thwart the precious work of the Convention. It is right to resume the process on the basis of the achievements of the Italian Presidency, which in any case managed to obtain the consensus of all the countries involved on 90% of the proposed text. Now we need to make an additional effort to rise above the obstacles which concern, above all, qualified majority voting. The question is, however, not just formal or technical: the real problem we need to overcome is selfishness in some quarters, which in any case must be addressed. We need to discuss this, but if we want Europe to be strong politically and to be a leader in the peace initiative, this selfishness must be overcome. One final remark, Mr President—in-Office of the Council: we should not forget to include a clear reference to Europe’s Judeo-Christian roots in the preamble. We cannot conceive of constructing a large house for 500 million citizens by forgetting the foundations on which our common home must rest.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wholeheartedly support this report by Mr Staes on the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition. It allows the Commission to take safeguard measures in emergency situations without consulting Member States, and thus significantly increases the speed and efficiency with which cases can be dealt. The change from requiring 'all necessary assistance' to 'full assistance' from Member States, and the fact that the European Parliament has to be kept informed as to results, also indicate that this report is of genuine significance for all Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for the explanations he has given us, but he will understand that with the package of amendments the Commission is rejecting ... Tomorrow this Parliament will vote on the report and then we will have to continue working in order to be able to achieve at some point a common position which can be accepted by this House. That is far away, Commissioner, and I believe that it is now the Commission which is obliged to make an effort. It has just told us that the prevention of fires is already included. I would ask, ‘where?’, Commissioner. We have discussed it many times; and as for the EFIS, this is an issue which is still being considered and which does not have so many arguments. We have just seen the Commission run out of arguments. It should reflect, and we should all reflect, in order to find a common position which is good for the forests of Europe, which, as we have seen here, is necessary and which this House supports.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, we have now heard a great deal about a very old topic, one that we have already been discussing for years – always, in fact, on the same level – and I wonder what progress we have made. We take pride in the 30% of Members of this House who are women. If we had 50%, that would be parity. We content ourselves with only 30%, or tell ourselves that we have made progress because we have done very well in comparison with other countries. What this means is that, for a century, we have been progressing one millimetre at a time, and that what we have achieved is far from being secure. When I say that there is the danger of us sustaining more setbacks in this area, I am not just referring yet again to the new Member States, but also to the present ones, which have to make enormous efforts to get that sort of quota into this House. Yesterday, when the progress reports were presented, I heard not one word said about the under-representation of women. This is something else that we should take into account and incorporate into progress reports of this kind, enabling them to show what is lacking and where changes still have to be made where equal opportunities policy is concerned. If we say there is a lack of women candidates – something of which we are very often accused – then we have to give some thought to how women are supposed to combine career, family and politics when they are constantly, too, having their consciences pricked by questions like: how can you do this, that, and the other, as well? This, I think, is where society has a part to play, and this is where there must be consequences for those Member States that fail to do what they have undertaken to do, namely create really equal opportunities. I find myself wondering what mechanisms there are and what are the consequences when they fail to do that.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Mr Liikanen, for an absolutely excellent and very interesting answer. We see that a very great deal indeed is happening in this area. In the future EU, that is to say an EU with 25 Member States, upwards of 50 000 people will die each year on our roads. That is equivalent to a medium-sized Swedish town being wiped out every year. We cannot go on like this. We have high hopes of IT technology and the eSafety programme. It is a very important piece of work that is going on, and it appears to be at an advanced stage. I also hope that Parliament will express its opinion on the report mentioned by Mr Liikanen. The industry has made great progress, but there are big differences between one EU country and another in terms of IT sophistication. Applications such as these require installations both in cars and in the environment. I should like to hear Commissioner Liikanen’s assessment of progress in the various Member States and also in the candidate countries.

Political group: PSE
VAT, like all indirect taxes, is a scandal. It is a tax which is paid at the same rate by the poorest and by the wealthiest, by the unemployed worker and by the billionaire. In other words, the real problem is not ‘administrative cooperation’ between States, as proposed by the author of the report, but the fact that VAT’s share in State revenue is much greater than that of income tax, which is, at least to some extent, in proportion to the size of taxpayers’ incomes. We are demanding the complete abolition of VAT, and its replacement by a tax on incomes and on wealth which would be highly progressive, to the point where the tax paid by the wealthy classes would make up for the loss of earnings caused by the abolition of indirect taxes. We voted against this report. - Report: Corbett (A5-0266/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, may I start by thanking the Council and Commission for their information because I assume that they are doing a great deal, even though the newspapers have very little to say on the subject. Today I spoke on the telephone with a journalist from a Bavarian newspaper in Istanbul. Unfortunately, she told me that not only was the Turkish government ignoring some of the deaths in the Turkish prisons, but that Turkish society was barely interested either. In these circumstances it is, of course, very difficult to make people in Turkey understand why we debate these problems here in the European Parliament. But the Turkish public needs to know that it is unacceptable in a state under the rule of law for people to die in its prisons without anyone doing anything. Therefore, because we take Turkey seriously, because we want Turkey to have a chance in the future in the European Union, we also want Turkey to behave as we would expect our own Member States to behave. Having said which, it is really very, very sad and disturbing to note that ... (Demonstrators forced their way into the Chamber chanting loudly; protests from numerous members)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe that the Titley report and the code of conduct, which we are debating together today, are two initial steps in the right direction. Of course, we must regard them as just a starting-point. I would like to make a few general points, which I think may contribute to the debate. The arms trade is characterised by the fact that the major purchasers are poor countries, which seem to be able to find the money for arms but not for anything else. This should trouble us, since the money comes from smuggling, from the sale of drugs and from a compliant banking system. But the sale of weapons is often made easier by the dealers themselves. I believe that it is not enough for us to seek out the end user. We must seek out the producers, who must be made to defend themselves and to explain what they have done with their entire weapons production, because usually weapons smuggling starts with the producer and not with any other sector. I would like to add that, in addition to the countries of the European Union, all the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe that have close ties with the EU, Cyprus, Canada and others have contributed to this positive development. However, Amendment No 21, which I do not agree with because of the way it is worded, gives me the opportunity to say that Turkey, to which this amendment refers, must send a representative to appear before this House to explain its position to us. This may seem like a different issue, but it is not. We cannot take practical decisions based on false information and distorted realities. This relates to the specific statement made about Turkey’s behaviour in this regard. Anyway, I repeat what I have already said: Parliament cannot waste time debating an issue without a representative from the Turkish Government providing answers to our questions. Without these answers, we are simply struggling to take practical decisions based on false information and assessments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a Christian Democrat, I would like to evaluate the Commission’s proposal on two counts. First of all, the principle of subsidiarity is observed, the countries are sufficiently involved, and secondly, sufficient consideration is given to organisations or the social mainstream. In this sense, I am pleased that a reinforced Advisory Committee is to be set up which can possibly exert more influence on the fisheries policy. So far, so good. I am less impressed, however, with the actual implementation. I have to note that the proposal is lacking in two areas at least. To start with, not all Member States are represented, which is very poor indeed. After all, this Parliament also believes in the subsidiarity of Member States. This means that Member States with a major fisheries sector cannot be left out. Secondly, if the social mainstream and organisations are to be involved in the fisheries policy, this should be done in a balanced and proper way, recognising just how important geographic distribution is. On this score, the proposal is simply inadequate. It is for this reason that, together with other Members, Mr Van Dam, among others, I would still ask that an Advisory Committee be set up which has an important role to play, but which must represent the entire sector Europe-wide. In practical terms, this means that all fishing nations of the Union have to be represented in the committee. In the former Advisory Committee, agreement was reached on this between the sector and the Commission. In my view, also from a Christian Democratic viewpoint, the fact that this was overlooked in the present proposals submitted by the trade organisations is most unacceptable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission’s statement here today, which is actually more balanced than our draft resolution. I also note with interest that the Commissioner made specific reference to the RDR, which is the Liberals’ sister party in Côte d’Ivoire. We have attempted to maintain contact with the party, but recently, of course, that has not been possible. I am very disappointed at the part the EU has played in this matter. In April, I asked the Council what measures were being taken to aid the functioning of the National Reconciliation Forum and what measures were envisaged for monitoring the elections in June 2002. At that time, it was said that the EU certainly was concerned about the fact that the 2000 elections were characterised by violence, infringements of human rights and exclusion of some major political parties, and talks were held pursuant to Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement. The talks were, however, brought to a close in June 2001, and it was not thought possible to make any particularly significant contribution to the supervision of the elections, or to provide support, or to play an active role. Many people in the region are suffering because we remained passive and did not take a more active role. This is a shame, because this is an area in which the EU could have been active, and we were aware of these issues. We are concerned about the troubles spreading out in the region. As usual, there is a great risk that women and children will bear the brunt of the suffering. We know that the position of children in Côte d’Ivoire is not as it should be. The Liberals will not support item 5 of the resolution, and my colleague Mr Van Hecke will go into more detail on this matter.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, unusually for me I can stand here and say that virtually everything has been said. I agree with Mr von Boetticher and Mr Cappato and especially with Baroness Ludford. We are all members of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs; we have adopted a position and we have not rushed into it just because we have been bullied and lobbied on the Internet and via the fax machines that are in all our offices. We have to be very careful about legislating on the hoof. I have to say to the Commission that what it is proposing is wrong and hurried. In 2003 we will have a very good opportunity, in the e-commerce directive, to gather the information and the wisdom obtained from those Member States which have chosen either to opt in or to opt out. We must only propose and adopt legislation on the basis of good counsel and good experience. We must never underestimate the civil liberties implications to which Baroness Ludford has rightly alerted this House. At this time, when we perhaps are being a little over-assertive with some of the legislation we are bringing forward, I do not want anyone to have to confirm why they have opted to receive, for instance, Ammunition Weekly or why they have chosen to get some information from Amnesty International. The Internet has freed people from dictatorships and oppressors, and yet here we are introducing a kind of censorship by the back door. It is wrong and ill-informed. The Commissioner may shake his head and smile, but does he want to have to explain to a government agency or some other agency why he has chosen to opt in? That is not freedom: that is being answerable for using a service that is intended to free you. On the issue of the right of privacy: we all have the right of privacy, but that right cannot be imposed on individuals. Individuals choose the right of privacy and then legislation backs it up. On the matter of unsolicited commercial e-mail: not all UCE is spam. Here again the Commission has played right into the hands of those who want to drive jobs out of the EU and who pretend that, just because the EU is imposing a ban on sending UCEs within its territory, such a ban will be respected by people in Japan, the Philippines, the USA or anywhere else. Finally, on spamming, I myself have been spammed. My name has been put on various lists and the spam comes in. That has been done by individuals who have opted me in to the lists held by the spammers. I have a very good option: I have a filter, I have a delete button. We must encourage people to use the technology and stop being their nannies. Please support the Cappato report, as amended. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
When you read the papers and reports from the Summit, you have to admit that George Orwell did not live in vain. At any rate, his Ministry of Truth or the principles behind it have survived him. Now, we no longer talk about war; we talk about humanitarian campaigns. And an army is not called an army; 60 000 armed soldiers are a humanitarian rapid reaction corps. In spite of the fact that the Finnish Presidency has been genuinely enthusiastic in its efforts to promote openness, the Commission has produced a document containing its own, Orwellian, notions of openness. Openness applies only to a very limited extent and not if you ask for it too often, for example as a journalist, and intend to publish the information in question and thus actually sell newspapers. In that case, openness does not apply. Turkey has also been processed by the Ministry of Truth. It has now become more democratic, even if the Kurds and Turks continue to be oppressed. Yesterday’s debate here in the Chamber concerning European culture was quite a disagreeable experience. It was the debate which arose out of Turkey’s status as an applicant country. What is our common European culture? I want to say at once that I have very little in common culturally with Jörg Haider in Austria or Mr Le Pen in France or, for that matter, with my own countryman, Mogens Camre in Denmark. I feel I have much stronger cultural ties with progressive Turks and Kurds who are fighting for justice, freedom and democracy, and I am looking forward to the day when they can be welcomed into a European working partnership. I am looking forward to Europe’s beginning to take its multi-ethnic culture seriously, but as long as the death sentence against Mr Öçalan is still in force, this is quite the wrong moment to send the Turkish Government a signal to the effect that Turkey is welcome as an applicant country

Political group: GUE-NGL