GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is very regrettable that this common position, which has been put together with such care by the Council and which paid due respect to the Parliament's views at first reading, is now in the process of unravelling. I think we are going to lose a rather useful piece of legislation which would have put in place a necessary supervisory framework for one of the growth areas in financial services, namely the storage of cash on plastic cards and other forms of e-money. The concerns which have been expressed by the European Central Bank, which have largely, but perhaps not fully, been taken on board, are coming out in a way which is likely to damage the potential for this business to develop. The concerns, particularly about the waiver, are misguided precisely because it would be very limited: it would be limited to only EUR 150 on any particular card. Every issuer would be supervised by national authorities and we know that the potential for money-supply growth caused by this sort of issuance would be extremely slight given the sort of schemes which are already operating in a number of Member States: for example, on university campuses a student may be able to use this piece of plastic to buy something in a bar, or in a canteen, or in the university bookshop. The reality is that other Community central banks – notably the Swedish Riksbank, the Bank of England – do not have these concerns about money creation. If we look at the reality of the ECB's concerns over the last few years, we can see that there has not been a stable relationship between the money supply and the growth of nominal income. There has been a substantial variation in the velocity of circulation because of new developments within the financial services industry and this is merely another one of those. Therefore, in the years before the ECB took charge of euro-zone monetary policy, the Bundesbank itself was not able to respect the growth of its money supply targets. What we have here is an attempt, when we see that a particular theory of monetary control is not working and does not accord with reality, to squeeze that reality back into the theory, to the detriment of the innovatory capacity of the Member States and of their financial systems. That is very regrettable. There are a lot of safeguards that the Commission has put in here that the Council has carefully discussed and I very much hope that we will fully support the Council common position on this matter.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, never in my career as an MEP, and I have been a Member since 1979, has there been a treaty which leaves one with such a bitter taste as this one. That is hardly surprising, for whoever takes stock of the chaos which the government leaders created in Nice, is not amazed that all eyes are now fixed on post-Nice. That is, after all, the quickest way to make people forget Nice. One of the problems is that it has now become impossible to explain to any citizen how vote weighting works, or what the outcome of the Commissioners’ rota system is. Neither is it clear how many MEPs there will be between 2004 and 2009. Post-Nice is thus not a normal follow-up of Nice, but a harsh necessity to rectify what has gone wrong as soon as possible. What needs to be done? The democratic hole which was as a result of the fact that the European Parliament will not be receiving codecision power on all the topics which will soon be decided on by qualified majority, must be filled at the earliest opportunity. In actual fact, we should already be reaching an interinstitutional agreement on this. It is disgraceful that power has been removed from the national parliaments and has subsequently not been transferred to the European Parliament. Secondly, there should be a fair distribution of national and European powers, which must be laid down in a European constitution. The latter should also include the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. I happen to share Mrs Lynne’s opinion that the document is sound. Thirdly, the current IGC procedure must be replaced by an interinstitutional convention which is capable of preparing these actions. The damage which Nice has done must be repaired before the next European elections, in other words by 2003, for we cannot afford to carry this burden into those elections in 2004. Finally, Madam President, you mentioned citizens. But do you realise that in the three-way discussion on this notorious regulation on access to documents, we constantly meet with a Council in full body armour, which does not give an inch and which is causing us the greatest of difficulty? Madam President, Mrs Lynne mentioned the word ‘strong’. There must have been eleven governments in Nice. Well, they were anything but strong on the day. Let us not beat about the bush.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Napolitano on his report, which has been deservedly praised today, and to which my group has not tabled radical amendments, just a few for the sake of fine tuning. This report starts by making it very clear that the European Parliament and the national parliaments, in their own contexts, fully represent the peoples of the European Union who are, Mr Berthu, sovereign peoples, as stated, amongst other things, in their constitutions for more than a century. In this regard, I would like to thank Mr Napolitano for accepting my amendment, with which I wanted to highlight this extreme situation, which is almost always invoked by those who want to strengthen a particular institution at the expense of others. At the end of the day, this approach is, frankly, ridiculous. European citizens need a European Parliament, in the same way that they need their national parliaments, and the relationship between these should not be based on rivalry but on cooperation. The report not only reaffirms the need for this cooperation, but also, in my opinion, very realistically calls for it to be organised through an interparliamentary agreement in order to make better use of resources. It deals with improving the exchange of information and avoiding overlapping between various activities for cooperation. It also recognises the competences of the national parliaments, not only with regard to the governments of the Member States, but in the application of Community Law. It shows that these powers are much greater than those which are often known or spoken about. If the national parliaments do not want to exercise these powers, that is their own business. Mr President, the national parliaments and the European Parliament have to cooperate, not compete with one other. Mr Napolitano’s report, as we would say in Spain, ‘gets things straight’. From the point of view of cordiality and solidarity with the national parliaments it makes things very clear and lends support to deep, solid and substantial cooperation. Let us support it with our vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since 1998 eight states in Nigeria have enforced a form of Islamic law which allows corporal punishment, despite the fact that it contravenes both the Nigerian Constitution and international covenants on human rights to which Nigeria has signed up. The effect on human rights is graphically illustrated by the case of Bariya Ibrahim Magazu, a 17-year old mother of a young child. Despite having lodged an appeal against her sentence of 100 lashes, the sentence was carried out in January without even her lawyers being informed. They were still preparing the case for her appeal in court. No attempt has been made to bring those who abused and exploited her to justice. This case highlights the increasing anxiety about human rights abuses in Nigeria. People of different religious beliefs have coexisted peacefully in Nigeria in the past, yet George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on his recent visit to the country, underlined the growing international concern about developments there. The Christian minority are not allowed to build churches or to teach their religion in schools. In areas where Muslim law is enforced men and women are not allowed to travel on the same public transport, and boys and girls have to be taught in separate schools. In the state of Kaduna it is estimated that 2000 people have been killed in fighting between Christians and Muslims over plans to introduce the new Islamic code of law. Yet human rights groups of both faiths are now campaigning on these issues. The resolution we have before us sends out two clear messages. The first is that we in the European Parliament are not prepared to ignore human rights abuses anywhere and so we condemn without reservation the treatment of Bariya Ibrahim Magazu and call upon the Nigerian Government to prevent any repeat of such abuse in future. But the second is that we are also making a commitment, as a parliament, to support the creation of a democratic and just society in Nigeria by strengthening the dialogue between ourselves and that country.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to thank the rapporteur at the outset for his close cooperation. All of one mind, we are on track to make Galileo a reality. I would also like to start by thanking the Commissioner, who repeatedly and doggedly pleads, and indeed fights, for Galileo at Council level. Economically, technologically and politically, Galileo is a strategic project for the future. That has already been said several times. Here in Europe, we should remember how it was explained to us decades ago that we did not need the Airbus, we did not need a missile industry. They would do all that for us, and it would be for the best. Where would we be today if, for example, we had not developed the Airbus ourselves? Now, though, I have two practical observations on Mr Glante's report. I consider it essential that industry should today already be actively involved in Galileo. There is no use in describing Galileo's importance in fine words; we need industry to make a clear commitment to Galileo. We must make a start right now on developing services to get products onto the markets of the future, products which would enable Galileo to be self-financing, which is what both sides of this House want: hence we need absolutely clear support for the Commission proposal to this end. We should, though, perhaps give thought to some reduction in the ‘front-loading’. I see Galileo's political dimension as a second important point. We want Europe to have a common foreign and security policy. We have the Rapid Reaction Force, and we want, in the future, to send our soldiers to troublespots. Here, too, we need to assume responsibility for our soldiers, which means that we have information systems of our own and are no longer dependent on third countries. What this means is that Galileo is, to some extent, necessary if we are to grow up in the way we approach external policy. Tomorrow should, therefore, see Parliament send a clear demand, for the sake of Europe's future, that the Council should decide in favour of Galileo! Apart from that, we propose, as an alternative, that, if the Council proves to be Galileo's undoing, we might well have to have thoughts about the defence budgets, and I am very definitely of the opinion that it is our primary duty to ensure that Galileo remains a civilian product.

Political group: PPE-DE
We cannot support this attempt to build a political and parliamentary sphere in the European Union from above. The EU elite believes European political parties will solve legitimacy problems and support integration, but the opposite is likely to happen. There will be conflicts between the rights of national political parties and European political parties since they have to be active within the same 'political space' (There is no European political space which exists in no-man's-land above the national territories). The citizens in the Member States, who are supposed to contribute tax money to the proposed European parties, will view these as artificial bodies intended to reduce the influence of the national parties and to impose political integration from the top down. Democracy must be built from the bottom up, not the other way around. We strongly recommend that the proposal be withdrawn.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Virrankoski has given us a breakdown of how the European citizens’ money has been spent on running Parliament. I voted for the motion but I would like to point out that, one day, a vice-president addressed me as I was delivering my explanations of vote and said: ‘Are you not aware, Mr Fatuzzo, how much each second of your explanations of vote costs?’ At first I felt a bit guilty, but I would like to point out on this occasion how much the European Parliament saves every second when I do not speak, how much the European Parliament saves when I keep to the time limit, as I am doing now, and finish my explanation of vote within the sixty seconds allowed!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we agree with Mrs Béguin’s report because it is underpinned by a particular situation: neither the Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in 1992, nor the various international conventions incorporated into Community law, specifically the birds and habitats directives, have managed to put a brake on the destruction of biodiversity. Furthermore, it clearly shows that thousands of species that have not even been identified will disappear. In fact, 11 000 species of fauna and flora are in danger of extinction. I believe that is sufficient for us to adopt the appropriate measures. The rapporteur welcomes the plans that are proposed but points out that there are plans that have still not been carried out such as, for example, those concerning forests. She also speaks clearly about the need to incorporate environmental policy into our other policies, whether they concern agriculture, fisheries or anything else. As I have very little time, Mr President, I shall just give one example, because examples are the best way of explaining what needs to be done: the use of EAGGF Funds in the destruction of the last remaining laurel forest on the island of Gran Canaria. I spent last weekend on the island of Gran Canaria with a group of volunteers who protested to the European Commission – I refer you to the question I asked at the time – that in the lime-tree forest of Moya, the only laurel forest remaining on the island, now that all the water that used to come down during droughts has been enclosed in pipes, all the forest’s trees are drying up. This is being done with EAGGF Funds. We must acknowledge all the valuable work done by volunteers, because they give their spare time, unpaid and unrewarded, to fight to preserve this natural resource. The volunteers are grateful for the answer that Mrs Wallström gave them, because it proved her excellent knowledge of the area – which must be looked after, because it is likely to become part of the Nature 2000 network – and because she asked the Spanish Government to assume responsibility for looking after this area. Mrs Wallström, your speech gave hope to the volunteers. This is a clear example of why European Funds should not be used for projects that damage the environment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what do our fellow-citizens say to us when we go out among them to talk to them about Europe? What do they ask us about? Most of all, they ask us about the role of the European Union. What does it do? How is it run and by whom? What they ask of us is clarity in decision-making, precision and comprehensibility in the division of its competences. Seeking closer identification with the European Union and with its actors, they would also like Europe to be closer to them and to care more about their future. The Convention has done even more than to outline the face of the new Europe; by specifying its competences and putting faces to decisions, it has fashioned the European Union’s body. It has created essential linkages that will enable our political design to progress. I believe it needs to be said, and repeated, that the draft constitution produced by the Convention under the former French President, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, is a good one. What makes it the best of compromises is the fact that, rather than aiming to combine national institutions, it proposes a wholly new structure, one that makes for greater effectiveness and clarity and is in line with modern thinking. I find it regrettable that last December saw a triumph for introversion, for individual interests, for the self-centredness of the nation states. What place is there for the European public in this masquerade? Above all, as this House had said, the Intergovernmental Conference is a thing of the past. The Convention, a novel form of institution, was a gamble that paid off, even demonstrating that the intergovernmental method is no longer suited to the modern-day needs of the EU. The way the IGC works reflects a former ambition that left no room for the real European designs, the one that gives us a glimpse of the future. The EU is changing its nature before our very eyes. The debates between those, on the one hand, who favour an intergovernmental approach, and on the other, the proponents of federalism, bear no relation to the realities of the EU. The draft constitution embodies realism and modernity precisely because it bridges the divisions of the past that prevent us, today, from driving the European project forward. It gives Europe’s citizens more power. Let me conclude by saying that our House will respond to this blockage by standing firm, by seeing to it that we get a modern constitution, one that enables Europe to act, that makes it visible and gives it credibility. I wish the Irish presidency every success.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to address the question of the taxation of electronic services and to clarify the nature of the problem. When goods are traded electronically across borders, VAT is levied as a matter of course. When an item physically crosses the national border, unless that item can be transferred electronically, VAT is levied. The question arising here is whether VAT is levied when such items are the subject of a service which is provided electronically. Even in these cases, we have many instances in which VAT is already levied. If the transaction takes place within the European Union between two Member States, VAT is levied. I am told that, when transactions are effected between states in the US, the applicable sales taxes are also levied in certain cases. The only instance in which no tax is levied is when the supplier is in a non-EU country and the recipient is in a Member State of the EU. There can be no doubt at all that this constitutes a distortion of competition, being detrimental both to retailers who, though they do not sell the same items, deal in similar products and to suppliers who offer the same sort of product from countries within the EU. Such distortion of competition cannot be tolerated in the long run, which is why I should like to say on behalf of my group that we endorse the proposals on this matter by the European Commission and by the rapporteur, Mr García-Margallo y Marfil. In essence, it is only a question of finding a set of rules now so that these matters can be administered with as little red tape as possible. In this respect, the French proposal that registration be carried out in fifteen countries is surely not a suitable solution. The second point on our agenda is the taxation of aviation fuel. Here too, I go along with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in principle. The taxation of aviation fuel is desirable for various reasons, but it is our firm belief that it can only be taxed on the basis of an international regime. If the European Union goes it alone, the result will be that flights from Frankfurt to the Costa del Sol, for example, will become considerably more expensive than flights from Frankfurt to Florida. That too is an unacceptable distortion of competition to the detriment of European operators. I therefore believe that efforts must be undertaken to create an international regime for the taxation of aviation fuel. My group and I take the view that unilateral European action would be unwise. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr Wuori, for his excellent report. Slavery was abolished in the nineteenth century, but now it is estimated that people are being sold from their countries at a rate of four million a year, and the number is growing. The global markets are so free that human bodies now have a market value. The violent trade in human organs focuses on the poor. Some poor people positively rise from their graves, in a manner of speaking, when their organs are transplanted into living people. The problem is also that human rights violations have become ever more profitable and, in a society of greed, it takes money to protect human rights. We therefore face the sort of problem that results from greed. The most widespread is the numbing of the human brain in the name of business. The global mass entertainment of television creates a false world, a virtual world, where every kind of business or trade flourishes and the importance of democracy is diminished. The international sex trade has acquired an excellent tool in the Internet. Legislation lags behind because many people think the freedom of the Internet should not be restricted. I suggest that we establish a European body to make rules for the protection of privacy in the information society era. The notion of human rights will not work where they are being violated both mentally and physically.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ‘ecological’ and ‘biological’ are the buzzwords of the moment, and they are often hollow ones. It is surely not enough simply to prefix the word ‘fuel’ with ‘bio’ and thus create a biofuel that is 100% biological. On this I am in agreement with the criticisms voiced by Members of this House. What, though does ‘biological’ mean? For me, it means an all-embracing eco-balance sheet, one that covers cultivation and production, as well as the output of gases. I would therefore ask you to evaluate normal fuels in the same way, without succumbing to the temptation to apply double standards. Any eco-balance sheet must, in my opinion, include an economic evaluation of biofuels, which must be compared with conventional ones. Here we have the chance to build up a market of our own in the European Union, which would mean an increase in EU jobs in production and processing. But a market of our own also means independence – that we would no longer be dependent on global markets and affected by world economic crises. This Europe of ours will never achieve complete independence in the field of fuels; our consumption is too high for that. But we can at least make a start on operating and securing our fuel market ourselves in the future. As has often been mentioned, the cultivation of renewable raw materials could be an additional – and welcome – source of income for agriculture in the European Union. Good use would be made of land that had been set aside, which would be a source of important and new produce. Let me conclude by noting that every new market needs to be supported politically, financially, and – very importantly – with ideas, if it is to establish itself on a long-term basis. It is my contention that at least 50% of wind farms would not have been built without subsidies, and heaven knows that not all of them function efficiently. Let us do all we can to get the reports through; I ask Members to support them.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Conservative Party is fighting hard to attack fraud within the EU but we cannot support this report because of its references to a European Public Prosecutor, which we believe is an incursion on national sovereignty in the area of criminal justice. We have therefore abstained on the final vote in order to reflect our support for the fight against fraud within the EU, whilst protecting our position on the European Public Prosecutor.

Political group: PPE-DE