GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the point I should like to make is that we simply want to cooperate better with the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. We have not reached a view on this report as we would normally do, partly because we received it far too late. The same may also be true of other committees. Against the background of the matter we have just been discussing, namely the Commission Communication on policy coordination between economic policy, which involves competition policy, and employment policy and other areas of social policy, we need to consider to what extent we can achieve a number of things that are very important in the fight against unemployment. One example of a very important issue is a fourth exemption regulation. If you are in a region suffering from severe problems and pressure, where subsidies are needed and the procedure for obtaining them is very bureaucratic – I myself come from such a region, but I know countless others – then this is very irritating. In these circumstances it is great to see the social aims in existing legislation being given a chance, and that is what I meant just now when I was talking about exchange. I hope that this base will broaden in the future, and that starting from the Spring summit in Athens we will pursue exchanges in an attempt to achieve common social and sustainability goals, considering what economic policy can contribute to this process rather than bringing matters which the Treaty describes as subordinate in line with economic policy. Briefly, against that background I think that this is an excellent proposal and believe it important for competition rules in general – I am thinking for example of services of general interest, which I could list – to be re-evaluated and tested against what we want to achieve through social policy. Looking at the Lisbon process as a whole, I think that a number of the assumptions contradict what we are trying to achieve with our employment objective. Some objectives, such as the new economy for example, were quite unjustly selected in the Lisbon process. We can see that now and realise the far-reaching consequences. State aid based on those Articles 87 and 88. Those articles are very important in rechanneling back to the objectives of social policy, and that is why we must avoid any misunderstanding. Perhaps we now need to go a step further. I believe that we must not only ensure that existing regulations are properly translated into social objectives but must also look at what social objectives we need, as formulated in the Treaty among other documents, and consider whether we should revise the Treaty, for instance to put social policy and economic policy on an equal footing. Against that background, and considering the proposals contained in Mr Berenguer Fuster's report – and I should like to thank him and his committee for their work – I call on members to support Amendments Nos 1 to 4. Support by the whole of Parliament for these amendments could well sway us to vote for this proposal as a whole.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in my own country, Sweden, a priest proposed yesterday that, in order to avoid war, someone should be paid to kill Saddam Hussein. That is perhaps a rather bizarre message, coming from a representative of the Church of Sweden, but the idea of a regicide in the service of the people is otherwise quite an old one. Certainly, some of us have had these thoughts in secret, but this type of murder cannot of course be committed. It would be contrary to international law. The war could nonetheless perhaps be stopped if Saddam Hussein were to resign or go into exile. The discussions now being conducted within the Arab world to induce Saddam Hussein to resign are extremely interesting. We hope, of course, that an international court will be able to hold Saddam accountable for his crimes. If the clock could be turned back, there is a lot in the Iraqi conflict that could have been done differently. The Arab world should have been involved much earlier in the discussion of the future of the whole of the Middle East. The United States, the EU and the UN Security Council ought to have shown greater commitment to solving the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The peace talks must begin again. Otherwise, we shall never win the fight against terrorism. Now, the drumbeats of war can be heard. The view of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is still that the weapons inspectors must be allowed to continue with their work for as long as their efforts are meaningful and for as long as they are making progress. The progress that has been made has been due not to Saddam Hussein’s having become willing to cooperate but to the resolutions and the threat of military force. We must never forget that it is Saddam Hussein who must prove that he does not have weapons, not the UN which must find them. Hopefully, war can still be averted. It is our view that if, in fact, any military decisions are to be taken, they must be taken by the UN Security Council. The UN is, however, seriously wounded at present. The horse trading that is going on in order to convince countries to vote yes or no in the Security Council is pathetic and damages the entire international community. When the permanent members quarrel, these difficult decisions are left to countries such as Ghana, Cameroon and Angola. This is unreasonable and frightening, and it undermines the UN’s credibility. Substantial reform is becoming a matter of ever greater urgency. The UN is divided, as are NATO and the EU, and transatlantic relations are damaged. The only person to delight in the fact is the dictator in Baghdad.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is something I need to get off my chest. On Sunday, I expressed my solidarity with the Galician people by attending the demonstration in Santiago de Compostela. ‘Nunca mais’ was their slogan, and I should like to repeat it here. Galicia lives by the sea, and the sea was destroyed by merchant criminals who sail along the coast in old tankers full of oil. They are nothing more than environmental criminals who allow leaking tankers to be towed into the high seas. Now is the time to put our money where our mouth is and use the European Solidarity Fund to help the Galicians, and also to help the thousands of volunteers who are facing an impossible task. I would also urge everyone to see this apocalyptic scene for themselves, as the reality is much worse than the television footage. Please let this be Europe's last oil disaster. The Council must now take decisive action. ‘Nunca mais’ – never again.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, following the intervention by my colleague in seat No 662, here, in Parliament, I have asked for the floor on a point of order because this fellow Member has obviously fallen victim to misinformation or to a misunderstanding. In fact, the Members of the European Parliament who were in New York as part of the European Union delegation, which comprised 15 people with observer status, were not allowed to speak because, in accordance with the UN’s procedure for extraordinary general assemblies, the Portuguese Presidency spoke on behalf of the European Union. The Commissioner was entitled to give a speech in the plenary session. Even in the working parties, we were not allowed to take the floor, which was always given to the Portuguese Presidency. Do not, therefore, put words into the mouths of the Members of this Parliament who were in New York. In no instance did we speak in an official capacity, still less on behalf of this Parliament, although we did have some useful discussions with the Commission and the Council, with Members of the Parliaments of Member States and associated States, who allowed us to convey our views. What were banned from these meetings were the positions that Parliament adopted under the Smet/Gröner report, and nothing else. Mr President, Poland’s name has been bandied about a great deal, so I must say that we simply stated that Poland is accepting the acquis communautaire. If Poland tells us that it is free... (The President cut the speaker off) I do wish to point out that a fellow Member has accused us, Mr President, and I must be entitled to correct this, otherwise this is not a genuine Parliament. You may hear my explanation of vote tomorrow, Mr President, if you are going to cut me off.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on Monday I made a point of order about President Nicole Fontaine's reported comments in the British press regarding her recent visit with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A British Labour Member of this House, Mr Miller, repeated what were purported to be the Queen's remarks, not once but three times, on Monday, on Tuesday and on Wednesday. He sought to drag the Queen into a political controversy and to use her name to score cheap political points. Mr President, it may be that President Fontaine was unfamiliar with the British rules of protocol which obtain in such matters, but Mr Miller has no such excuse. He knows perfectly well that ours is a non-political Head of State. He knows perfectly well that for nearly fifty years she has scrupulously avoided engaging in controversial political issues. He knows perfectly well that she cannot come to this House to set the record straight. His behaviour is a disgrace and a scandal. Mr President, I am proud to be British but today I am ashamed to share my nationality with that man. Has he no shame? Has he no respect? Has he no decency or honour at all?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, biotechnology is at the heart of the Lisbon process to make Europe the world's most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy. In line with this ambition, biotech is top priority in the sixth framework research programme which we approved only recently. Advances in crop biotechnology promise major benefits for our environment and consumers. If, for a moment, we can give thought to the interests of others, they will be of incalculable benefit to those who are hungry or suffer blindness and disease in the third world. It is therefore shameful that we bow down to the destructive agenda of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, who are intent on bamboozling the public with unjustified scare stories. Clearly, their purpose is to prevent all advance in this area of great scientific promise, for that is what these present texts from the Trakatellis and Scheele reports would mean. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy understood these implications for industry, our farmers, our international trade relations, our scientific community and, yes, for our consumers. It voted for a GM free and virtually GM-free labelling system which would be readily workable and much less bureaucratic and more consistent with consumer wishes for simple and straightforward information – much more straightforward than the present Commission proposal, let alone the absurd texts before us. Certain Member States also would much prefer this solution. I ask the Commission to bear in mind, when it comes to codecision, that this option has support in Parliament. If it genuinely stands by its biotechnology action plan, it should give this option more consideration. Indeed, I call on the Commission this afternoon to state that this option could still be open.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to add my voice to those who have already expressed their satisfaction and support for the basic outline in the Bourlanges report. Mr Bourlanges stands before a double paradox – a debate on the budget which deals with expenditure but not income, and then a budget subject to the double conflicting pressure of an increase in the tasks of the European Union and an actual trend towards reduction of the European GDP rate which is reflected in the Union’s budget. The way out of the paradox has been suggested to us and means not accepting tomorrow’s priorities being financed by the sacrifices and priorities of today and yesterday, and consequently, financing new, indispensable priorities of external actions by increasing the Financial Perspective for Category 4. I hope that the European Parliament will follow the rapporteur’s statement and that the Executive Commission and the Council will accept the consequences of this. However, I do not think that everything can come down to difficult negotiations that seek a possible compromise between new resources and the sacrifice of former priorities. It would be a short-sighted attitude which is largely hypocritical and out of keeping with the irreversible prospect of an extension of the Union’s competences and geographical enlargement of the Union’s strategy. This prospect is dictated by the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam, but even more so by the change in global political balances following the war in Kosovo. One of the few and sure guarantees of stability and prosperity in Europe which cannot be ignored is Europe’s active presence on the world stage and its unequivocal, open attitude towards progressive enlargement policies, even towards south-east Europe and the Balkans in the perspective of that parallel virtual enlargement of peace and security which Mr Prodi has given us a glimpse of. In these circumstances, we need to make a bold choice. We need the hypothesis which is contained in Mr Bourlanges’ proposal to be set out for all to see. We have to say that the emperor is naked! Today the European Parliament, the Executive Commission and the Council have to take on the responsibility for opening a broad, thorough debate in full view of the European taxpayers. In short, we need to ask ourselves whether or not the moment has arrived to entrust the European institutions with greater shares of financial resources. This must not lead to any increase in public spending in Europe, but requires individual countries, all the European countries, to be willing to transfer the resources corresponding to the de facto transfer of competences to the Union. The increase in the Community budget will and can correspond to a reduction in national budgets. The task we have before us is a formidable one which can no longer be avoided, for otherwise the all the European institutions will lose credibility. I hope that Parliament will take this path.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, any consideration of this communication by the Commission which we are discussing today should take into account the fact that it is a document which is being presented at the same time that the new Commission is starting its work. This consideration obliges us to highlight its positive aspects and, to a certain extent, avoid any negative comment. It would be unjust, therefore, to describe the document as unambitious, but it would nevertheless have been justifiable to level this criticism at the document if it had been carried out by a Commission which had been in action for longer. This situation cannot hide the fact however that this is really simply a document of intentions, which we take note of. Meanwhile, we will wait to see whether these intentions become concrete measures, commitments which involve a time scale for their implementation. Then, and only then will we be able to make a more accurate judgement of the Commission’s intentions. Amongst the aspects which warrant our special approval, is that of protecting consumer interests. If anybody should benefit from the construction of the internal market, it is the consumer, that is, all of the citizens. And in this respect, Commissioner, there is a phrase in the communication which worries us. It says literally that “a more intense trade in goods and services between the Member States could lead to additional risks to the consumer”. This phrase raises the question of the view of consumer protection as an inevitable requirement to impede the free movement of goods, within the meaning of the judgement on Dassonville, Cassis de Dijon etc. In other words it leads us to the principle of mutual recognition, which seems to be very dear to Mr Bolkestein. I would like my position to be very clear. Mutual recognition is a principle which was important in preventing barriers to the free movement of goods, but it is only partially valid for the construction of the internal market in the absence of harmonised legislation. In order to move forward with the internal market, it will be necessary to insist on the principle of harmonisation. Once legislation in the field of consumer protection is harmonised, I would not be in a position to make such a statement.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I had a major problem with this resolution. Finally, I abstained on the vote for a number of reasons. I was in sympathy with the EDD Group amendment, talking about rejecting the interference of the EU in the formation of governments of Members States but I had to abstain because it just followed on the condemnation of xenophobia, racism, etc. and I felt that it might be misinterpreted. However, I do wonder about the wisdom of this. Firstly, there is the question of trying to combat intolerance with intolerance and the long-term consequences of that. I also wonder about the wisdom of the EU and its reaction to the formation of the government in Austria and how that is going to affect public opinion there. At the moment it seems that the Haider Party is getting more support rather than less from the opposition by outside governments. Even America has now said that it is considering breaking off diplomatic relations. We wonder if this is actually feeding the flames of xenophobia and the parties and people that support it. I really think that people should be extremely cautious. If you want to combat xenophobia and racism, and I believe that we should, we need to look at the root causes. We need to look at the people who vote for these parties, and understand why this situation arises. It is not a situation that most people in this Parliament want, but we need to be careful about the approach we take, so that we do not in the end up with the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, as my fellow Group member, Mr Haarder, announced in his intervention, I am going to focus on the specific aspects of the follow-up to the Lisbon European Council. In this respect our Group is critical, as it sees that the results are poor. In Lisbon what was agreed upon was a process of economic liberalisation, a process of structural reforms, the consolidation of the single European market and a move towards a single market for services, with the ambition of making the European economy the most competitive internationally by 2010, without, of course, giving up the social dimension or the levels of well-being that characterise the societies belonging to the Union. At this European Council, however, we have found that the individual interests of Member States have blocked necessary processes of liberalisation. Others, through internal disputes, as the Swedish Prime Minister has said in his capacity as President of the Council, have not been able to reach the necessary agreement for the single European sky, and so it has not been possible to turn what were good proposals at Lisbon into a reality. That is why our assessment is critical and we think the results are poor.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on a point of order would it be possible to reinstate Question No 2? I was at a foreign affairs meeting when this question came up. Unfortunately I had no prior notice that it was coming up because I have been in Sri Lanka for the last month heading an EU mission to observe the elections. I beg your indulgence to hear the answer please.

Political group: PPE-DE
The first thing I want to say is how warmly I welcome this Parliament resolution. This will send a clear signal around the world about how seriously we take the Y2K issue, and it will hopefully act as an example for others to follow. Time, however, is clearly running out. That means however good intentions are now there is bound to be a risk of failures. In particular, the high level of computer interconnections between countries, particularly in the western world, makes it impossible to predict exactly what the failures might be and where they could occur. The higher the level of integration, the higher the level of unpredictability. The situation in Eastern Europe is also far from reassuring. The lack of information coming from there worried the Commission as late as June this year, and the further east you go, the more worrying the situation gets. The safest approach is to turn off these plants at the millennium, but how does Lithuania turn off 75% of its generation capacity from Ignalia? By leaving people in the dark without water? The West must offer assistance, so I particularly welcome this resolution's call on OECD countries to provide resources for this. I will finish very quickly with an anecdote that would be funny if were it not so serious. The US and the Russians recently set up some hotlines them so they could liaise together over Y2K problems, and in all but one of the seven hotlines they set up, they discovered Y2K problems! Nothing will be certain in the weeks ahead, we must act now to reduce the risks around the world and I welcome the contribution this resolution will make to the process.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the fact that the security situation in Kosovo continues to be precarious prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to give particular attention to the deficiencies in the conduct of the European Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which the Court of Auditors has highlighted. These include the amount of cash held in reserve, the need to avoid making payments to unauthorised persons, and the need for better coordination between the Agency’s accounting officer and the competent directorate of the Commission. Statements by the Agency in response to these points have made it possible for these concerns to be laid to rest. The Foreign Affairs Committee is well aware of the difficult circumstances under which the Agency does its work. Let me say by way of conclusion, though, that the amount spent by the EU on aid must be rationally proportionate to its political benefit. The discharge report offers an opportunity to make that point. Whilst giving the agency discharge for the year 2002, we do expect the extension of its remit to the management of EU aid in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia to result in long-term improvements in efficiency and hence to the political stabilisation of the region.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is one of those areas where those of us who are neither legally nor technically expert address debates of this kind with our fingers crossed behind our backs, hoping that we are getting it right. I say that particularly in relation to this debate because so many hundreds of thousands of livelihoods depend on this Parliament and the Commission getting this issue right. There are very few absolutes in this debate. Perhaps the Commission is right to some extent, and perhaps Parliament is also right to some extent. What is absolutely certain is that doing nothing is not an option; we cannot allow the current situation to continue as it is. Therefore, I hope that the Commissioner can find a way to accept many of the excellent amendments that Mrs McCarthy has brought forward. The rapporteur has done tremendous work in teasing out the issues and presenting, certainly within my group, a very clear position. She has made every effort to find a consensus position. It is important that we ensure that the open-source area is encouraged and that the whole IT industry is maintained in a vibrant and innovative way. However, it is not right that we should allow the current legal uncertainty to continue.

Political group: PSE