GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, what is positive about this compromise is that obstacles to cross-border freight traffic will be dismantled in the foreseeable future, which definitely improves our chances of being able to transfer freight from the roads to the railways. Our guiding principle must be to create a truly level playing field on the competition front, through harmonisation and by taking comparable cost components into account. But then there is more to competition than a debate about lowest costs and highest profits, it is also about striving for sustainability, social competence, user-friendliness, quality and service. Why should a private-sector supplier be a priori any better at this than one under public ownership? We have a duty to explain what we understand by general public services, and whether we think they can be provided more effectively by publicly owned operators than private operators, or less so. I believe that having equal conditions of access for all will not prove profitable in every case. Private companies must make a profit or else face their demise. Publicly owned companies can, in fact, sustain losses in areas where this is necessary for social reasons, on account of their redistribution potential. It will not do for the profits to be absorbed by the private sector and the losses to be borne by society. What we need is for the public and private suppliers of services in a European internal market to adopt an approach that is in the interests of the common good. This will require uniform framework conditions. Experience will show whether the nascent liberalisation of the European railways will mean better services for rail users. Certain Member States have already implemented more far-reaching liberalisation measures, with very mixed results. Germany – I am sorry to have to say this gentlemen from the Deutsche Bundesbahn – is a prime example of how not to go about it. Stretches of track have been shut down en masse at regional level, there have been railway station closures, ever-increasing cycle times, repair workshop closures, and drastic cuts in staffing levels. This has nothing to do with competing for services to the general public.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, like my colleague Mr Evans, it is a particular pleasure to rise and make my first speech to this House on this very important issue, especially since I represent a part of the United Kingdom, the West Midlands, which has hitherto benefited from Objective 2 funding in particular. But the report before the House tonight is a prime example of how, if we are not very careful, we can produce very grandiose-sounding ideas that lack the substance to make them relevant to the people who benefit directly from them. The report itself is well-intentioned but, as so often when we deal with these issues, lacks clarity of purpose and a sound basis for operability. That is why I and my Group are proposing three key amendments and additions to the text, not to take anything away from the proposal, but to make it more relevant to those whom it is there to guide. I would like to explain our thinking here. Firstly, we are concerned with the proper use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds. Past experience dictates that, as the elected representatives of the European taxpayer, we should, and indeed must, demand financial probity and transparency in the disbursement and auditing of this money, hence our amendments and additions relate to achieving what are known as 'value for money' indicators in the grant-giving process. Next, we all too often see vast sums of money being spent on projects whose outcomes will necessarily be unclear at the start of the programme period. But at the mid-way point or end of that period there is no effective way of terminating the project if it has not proved successful. Our additions therefore call for the provision of practical enforceable exit strategies so that not only can we have the requisite insurance against ongoing costs which are often loaded onto the taxpayer, but we also avoid the well-rehearsed syndrome of throwing good money after bad. Finally, we call for a change to the balance and method by which the funds are disbursed. There should be greater involvement of the private sector which will introduce financial reality as a perspective within the funding equation. Also the type of project funded needs to be shifted away from small-scale revenue-based projects, which are hard to monitor, towards capital schemes where, in the majority of cases, the benefits are there for all to see. That way the much-trumpeted need for transparency in the use of these funds and the temptation to draw unnecessarily in the longer term on the local tax base in areas where such projects are located will be diminished and the European Parliament will show how seriously it takes the need for such reform. If these changes to the report are supported by the House today, I believe that they will move us forward in the next phase of achieving the historic objectives which the funds were set up to bring about, namely to assist – in a financially sustainable manner – those deprived areas of the European Union which need to be brought up to a decent standard of living, not by giving a hand-out but by giving a 'hand-up'. I urge the House to support these changes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the British countryside is at the moment in total crisis. I have a document here in front of me stating that the British government admits that it was unable to meet the required deadlines for the slaughter of infected animals. It goes on to say that the control of the disease, as my colleague there has said, has failed because we are now having new outbreaks in the centre of Britain, in the centre of the region where we thought we were rid of it. We have failed to control it and we have also failed to provide the necessary border controls. Last Sunday I drove from my farm in North Yorkshire to Strasbourg. I was never questioned about whether I was carrying any meat and there were no border controls at all to check my vehicle. There were no disinfection points. There was a simple carpet in the middle of the road and that was all. I say to Mr Lamy, who is the really important man here today, that we have a situation where England is the dustbin of Europe. We are importing food from these countries. We must look at that. Finally, will he consider the possibility of a public inquiry into the way this matter has been handled?

Political group: PPE-DE
The discussion and resolution on the Costa report is a black day for one Member State, namely Austria. Our country and its citizens are being ridden over roughshod in the most literal sense of the word, regardless. But it is not a black day only for Austria; with this subject the European Parliament, too, is playing with its reputation and is gambling it away here as a representative of citizens and environmental interests, playing into the hands of the noise and exhaust lobby. It was after all the European Parliament that amended the Commission’s original legislative proposal by a large majority and pushed its position through. The outcome of the conciliation procedure is that there are no more controls on transit traffic through Austria. There are no more limits on the environmental damage and no more protection for the local people. ‘Road clear for free lorries’ is the order of the day. If, as some have said, that is a concession for Austria, I can only say: God save us from friends like that! Under these circumstances, there is no question but that the Austrians will reject this proposed regulation. We ask those of our fellow Members who are concerned for the European Parliament’s reputation as an institution that is close to the citizens and friendly to the environment to support us in this. However the vote goes, the problems will not be solved. The Republic of Austria sees great difficulties in implementing what is to apply in future and the citizens will find the new rules hard to live with. I can see one positive aspect to this whole development: next year we shall be debating the infrastructure charging directive here. It will apply for the whole of Austria. It will no longer be about special favours for one country and its citizens. Then we shall see how this Parliament and its Members will vote: as friends of the citizens and the environment or the way the noise and exhaust lobby wants. Europe’s voters will express their gratitude on 13 June.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, at 8 a.m. this morning, I found myself in the good company of 24 other MEPs, staff and one Commissioner at Schiphol airport. We were really looking forward to spending another week in Strasbourg after the holidays, but our flight was cancelled, unfortunately. This is not the first time. We fly to Strasbourg with Regional Airlines. Since this aviation company was taken over by Air France this year, one in two flights has been cancelled. That means that each time we try to make our way to Strasbourg, in good spirits, we stumble across yet another hitch. Today too, we had to fly via Paris to Strasbourg. So, although I was at Schiphol in Amsterdam at 8 a.m., I, along with 24 others, did not arrive in Strasbourg until 4 p.m. At present, Air France is still 100% state-owned, and the French Government has assured us that it will bend over backwards to make our Strasbourg experience more bearable. That is why I would ask you to pass this complaint on to the French Government, because we would simply like to catch our direct flight to and from Amsterdam every Monday and every Thursday on time. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the issue now under our consideration is actually both urgent and one of human rights, because no human right is more important than the right to health. The attitude adopted by this United Nations body borders on the absurd, because this mission, which took place at the beginning of May, was only undertaken as a result of immense pressure by Taiwan. This almost makes me want to ask the United Nations and its Health Organisation whether they think that the virus is aware of their positions on Taiwan’s presence or otherwise in the United Nations. Only those who believe they can control this type of phenomenon with bureaucratic measures could adopt such a position. I therefore wish to congratulate those who have proposed this initiative and I should like to associate myself with their concern that Taiwan should be granted this observer status as quickly as possible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in my country there is currently a judicial process under way to ban Batasuna, with the sole objective of protecting democracy and the system of freedoms and, in this regard, I am grateful for your institutional words of support, because the truth is that there are hundreds of pieces of evidence linking ETA with Batasuna and it is not acceptable that public subsidies are being used to finance terror. Just today Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso has missed another opportunity to condemn this murder. Neither does he question the fact that his colleagues, at events that he organises, shout support for ETA or chant ‘Kill them, ETA’. What Mr Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso has done is to gather together more than EUR 200 000, put it in the boot of a car and try to send it to Spain. Mr President, we cannot stand by, we have the right and the obligation to prevent this appropriated money being used for the evil purposes of terrorism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we have been waiting for this regulation. It should enable us, at last, to launch the European Union’s action plan on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the countries of the South. This is a matter of urgency, because these diseases continue to kill millions of people every year, essentially in the developing countries, and, as we know, the diseases are in the South and the medicines are in the North. By means of Mr Wijkman’s report, we have to decide on two fundamental public health issues in the countries of the South. First of all, there is the issue of the financial resources which the European Union will be devoting to the fight against these three diseases in the coming years. On this point, the adoption of this regulation is an important step forward, but I should like to think that it is only the first step, because in June 2001, at the United Nations, the international community undertook to achieve, by 2005, the objective of seven to ten billion US dollars of annual expenditure exclusively to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries. We are therefore a long way from our goal, and if Europe wants to fulfil its obligations, it will have to go beyond the EUR 351 million over four years, which is what the rapporteur is proposing and what we are proposing together with him. The second issue at stake in this regulation is the political support expressed by the European Union for the countries of the South in their struggle to promote public health. On this point, the Committee on Development and Cooperation has done a good job. From now on, this regulation will contain an explicit and unequivocal reference to the Doha declaration on intellectual property, which recognises the specific rights of the countries of the South. It will also contain a reference to the facilitation of access to medicines in developing countries by making those medicines available at the lowest possible prices. However, this political support from the European Union should, above all, be expressed and manifested to the WTO in no uncertain terms. In this respect I deplore the failure of the negotiations of last December on the clarification of Article 31 of the intellectual property agreements. In order to escape from this impasse, the European Union must unreservedly support the proposals of the countries of the South. That is the request, Commissioner, which I am asking you to pass on to Commissioner Lamy.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, competition will of course be distorted if, for example, there is access to the electricity market but not to the gas market. And it will be distorted still more if we protect monopolies that then buy smaller companies elsewhere in other countries. We need common rules and the barriers to competition have to be eliminated, which obviously applies to all Member States. I also support Mr Seppänen’s request that the participants at Madrid should be consulted. I also think that the correct legal basis is indeed Article 95, as stated in the Commission’s proposal. I am astonished at this switch to Article 100, which I consider to be just an extra problem, and I hope we will go back to Article 95.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to say a warm thank you for the reports we have heard about today, and which do not just record what happened in the past, but also pick out the central themes of the present debate, and even incorporate the Commission’s plans. Competition is not, as has already been said, an end in itself. It must serve the interests of consumers, companies and local conditions. Competition is therefore always a means to an end. It is a vital cornerstone of our model, in terms of political order, of the socio-economic market economy. I stress this point because the market cannot regulate everything, which is why competition is not completely unrestricted, nor should it be. We therefore need two things: firstly, in the interests of increased transparency, we need to make the public aware of all the approved subsidies that influence competition, and secondly there must be areas of our day-to-day lives and behaviour which are not subject lock, stock and barrel to the dictates of European competition policy. The sports sphere or the numerous non-governmental organisations in the social and health spheres, to quote two examples. Who, like us, says ‘yes’ to a functioning internal market, must also have the courage of their convictions to say ‘yes’ to European competition policy. Therefore, we welcome the modernisation of competition policy, which is initiated and then maintained by a stream of new proposals. The Community’s competition policy has been given a new European and international dimension. In view of the enlargement process and globalisation, it is playing an increasingly important part in economic relations within and outside the European Union. I therefore welcome the modernisation going on within the Community on the one hand, and the fact that European competition policy now extends beyond Union borders. On a final note, we need a more precise definition of the relevant market because, increasingly, the market is not the national market. We need to promote the citizens’ awareness of competition policy, so that they recognise the advantages. We also need to step up debate in the European public arena on the relevant proposals, because they are frequently misunderstood. What I mean – and this is directed at the public, not the Commission – is that its decentralised application must not lead to renationalisation, but must instead lead to Europeanisation. When you delegate responsibility, you must take care not to surrender your key responsibility! Lastly, boosting the citizens’ autonomy must not create legal uncertainty, rather, European competition policy must well and truly leave its mark on the thoughts and actions of the people beyond the institutions. We still have a lot to do on that score, Commissioner!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, thank you for stealing one of the points I was just about to make. I thank you for your fight to save parliamentary prerogatives in the matter of the financial system. On a personal note, I am most grateful for Mrs Berès' moral support. However, the Conference of Presidents has made a decision, which I accept, and I offer my full support to Mr Brok, whose work and qualities we know. The Council presidency has confirmed its intention of presenting a global compromise before the 'conclave' meeting in Naples. One hopes that this is a wise decision. Experience would suggest that it is not at the level of foreign ministers, still less officials, that the final deal will be cut. The great patriotic questions that so obsess some of our Member States, such as a percentage point here or there on their voting weights in the Council, can only be resolved at 4 a.m. on Sunday, 14 December, by the top guys. What the foreign ministers appear to be clever at is unpicking the essential ingredients of the Convention's proposals. Yesterday several of them challenged the famous passerelle clause, which permits the steady development of the Constitution and of a decrease in the number of exceptional, non-normal decision-making procedures. But there have been many previous examples of this passerelle approach in previous and existing Treaties. Therefore, their consolidation into a single general clause is clear, simple and straightforward. The presidency is quite right in standing firm on this issue and the issue of the Foreign Minister and defending the proposals from the Convention. It knows that the European Parliament is right behind it. We also support the efforts of the presidency to open up the issue of the future revision clause. However, there can be no trade-off between the two, the passerelle clause and the softer revision procedures needed for a Constitution to work well and fluently in practice.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur on the effort he has made to improve this report. In recent years, Europe has had to face situations which we thought had been eradicated once and for all in our part of the world. In view of these events, I believe that we can no longer ignore our moral and political obligation to establish mechanisms to deal with a humanitarian catastrophe, when all other prevention mechanisms fail. The European Union must act as one on this. I wish to say on behalf of my group that we are in favour of distributing responsibilities amongst the Member States. I am not going to use the word burden because, having seen the faces of men and women in refugee camps in Macedonia, who are just like you and me, Mr President, it seems to me to be horrendous and repugnant to call them a burden. I believe that it in doing this we must take clear account of the situation and show a degree of flexibility, which the rapporteur acknowledges, simply to listen to the will of the refugees and to prevent them, as a result of their temporarily weak position, from effectively becoming a burden to be transported to where we, completely regardless of their views, decide. I also wish to congratulate the rapporteur on the effort which he has made to clarify the time periods, to clarify that, in this case, it is especially important to respect the time periods within which things are decided, and to support the amendment which our group has presented in order to specify and to reduce these time periods. In relation to family reunification, I wish to say to Mr Nassauer that I do not understand this obsession you have. The Right has convinced us, even the most stubborn of the ists, that the family is a necessary asset and an important pillar of our society. Is this only the case for Europeans? Mr Nassauer, are you on the Right going to leave your mother or brother in a situation of special need if a violent situation arises in your countries? Can we not, for temporary protection, take account of these especially serious situations which can cause particular anguish, and bring these people to the European Union together with their families? I truly believe that we can take account of them. With regard to the definition of the family, it seems to me that the Commission’s position that each Member State should apply its own definition of the family is more than reasonable and we are going to support this position. I hope that the Council does not make us wait another four years for a decision on this issue. I believe that Mr Wiebenga did not realise that he was taking on such a great responsibility when he produced his first report and that he will not mind being rapporteur for this issue for life.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, thank you very much for allowing me to speak last, despite having been the first Member to request the floor. First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your statement on the tragic events taking place in Jerusalem. I cannot say the same about your remarks to the Spanish press during your recent visit to Madrid, when you said that nationalism means war. Although that opinion was shared by the late Mr Mitterrand, I believe it to be narrow-minded and intolerant rather than open and democratic. To use the phrase from the dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy: 'a nation is a group of people of the same origin who speak the same language, have a shared tradition, a shared territory and an awareness of the same destiny', and the same dictionary defines nationalism as 'the devotion to a nation of the natives of that nation', and there is nothing more natural, more human, and more keenly felt by the citizens than devotion to one’s nation. Madam President, I accept that there is aggravated nationalism, extremist nationalism and violent nationalism. However, we cannot put all forms of nationalism into one pigeonhole. There are more than a hundred historic peoples in Europe who can be classed as nations, and there are millions of people in Europe who are nationalists and are devoted to their nation. Nationalism is also the devotion to and the defence of the nation state. Madam President, I ask you to respect the nationalists in this House, who are moderate, peaceful and democratic. I ask you to respect the historic peoples of Europe and the hundreds of millions of Europeans who consider themselves democratic and peaceful nationalists.

Political group: Verts-ALE