GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Regardless of the fact that the European Parliament was unable in the end to pass a resolution on Iraq, the way in which the majority of MEPs voted on the individual amendments is indicative of how it is dealing with this new demonstration of imperialist barbarity. All the amendments condemning the war as unjust and illegal and calling on the Member States not to provide facilities to the invaders were rejected. In an unprecedented distortion of the truth, the majority of members even voted against amendments which simply stated the obvious, that this war is being waged without the backing of the UN, is opposed by most members of the Security Council and has incited millions of people to take to the streets in daily protest. By contrast, the amendments adopted prove that all the European Parliament is interested in is the so-called ‘reconstruction’ of Iraq, for which read the sharing out of the spoils, and further militarization of the ΕU by strengthening the CSDP. It seems to us that the more the American and British imperialists stain their hands with the blood of the Iraqi people, the further the masks of the so-called moderate European imperialists will drop. The only opponent able to put an end to the war and overturn the powers supporting it is the anti-imperialist, grass-roots movement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the opinion of the Committee on Budgets is in a way summed up in paragraphs 2, 3 and 40 of the motion for a resolution; but you will understand that I will not give in to the temptation to end my argument here. Please allow me therefore to illustrate and expand on it a little. We totally agree with the phrase in paragraph 2, which says ‘profoundly regrets the fact that the Treaty of Nice has only given a timid response’. This is one of the great frustrations of the Committee on Budgets: that we have not been able, at this time, to deal with and resolve the budgetary issues before entering into the effective process of enlargement. In paragraph 3 of the proposal of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs it says that the Conference makes ‘the decision-making process within the Union more confused and less transparent’. In this regard, and from the point of view of the budget, I will just say that if you look at the budgetary payments and compare them with the votes of the Member States in the Council, the voting procedure will perhaps not appear so confused. Turning to certain budgetary aspects, we, as I said, expected more ambition from the Member States, we hoped that they would now deal frankly with the issue of the budgetary procedure and that they would even choose, if you like, a model such as that in the German constitution, which has a ‘financial constitution’ section, which provides for financial compensation (Finanzausgleich) between the Member States, the lander of the German Federation. This was the right time to do it without waiting any longer. There is still complete ambiguity with regard to the meaning of the Interinstitutional Agreement, to the point where there are 5 articles in the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline which provide for majorities not laid down in the Treaty. This legal problem has not been resolved in Nice. This frankly causes frustration in Parliament. We would have liked to have seen the financial perspectives set and defined, knowing that it was going to be a particular advantage to the European Union but not to Parliament. This time, the financial perspectives are mentioned in the Treaty but not defined, which means that we are not progressing much. New activities and new spending are proposed, and it is presupposed that the European Parliament will agree, but the financial means for it are not provided for. Because time is at a premium, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to address the President-in-Office of the Council because I have pointed out our different cultures, policies and traditions, but there is one thing that unites us all: Parliaments were born in Europe to represent the citizens by controlling public spending and approving the spending of the sovereign. The budget is at the centre of representative democracy and if we want a representative democracy in Europe we must make much more progress on the budgetary procedure. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, unlike my fellow MEP, Ms Kauppi, I think there are better ways of celebrating the first anniversary of the latest election to the European Parliament than by taking up the time of the Member of the Commission to discuss this minor issue as late as 11.00 p.m. We could have dealt with this issue in a more appropriate way. It is also obvious that this is mainly a fiscal problem. To my fellow MEP, Ms Kauppi, I would say that it is quite right to identify matters of concern to liberals here, but what has Ms Kauppi’s party colleague, Finland’s finance minister, done to try to adapt conditions in Finland to take account of this or other tax issues? It is, as has been said, in actual fact a fiscal problem. I have referred in part to points of order. I am very disappointed that the Court of Justice of the European Communities considered that a discriminatory time limit could be introduced for citizens from third countries. My party, the Swedish People’s Party, was against this, but was unfortunately forced to give in when the Court in Luxembourg made its decision. It is worth noting that, unlike a number of Swedish colleagues, the Finns were no doubt aware that our derogation for other alcoholic drinks from EU countries was a temporary derogation. For my part, I nonetheless support the Commission’s proposal whereby the year 2006 would be the time limit where imports of beer were concerned. I am also concerned that we should not relinquish future opportunities for transitional regulations in the negotiations with Estonia. The Committee has introduced an addendum concerning Estonia, among other countries. We have a similar problem in many border regions, and I would refer in this regard to Mr Paasilinna’s intervention. It is a question of not making a hasty decision. I would also refer to the difficult situation where competition between transport operators in the Baltic is concerned. The situation is very unequal, and there is a risk of its deteriorating further.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I also want to begin by thanking and congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Corrie, for an excellent report which I think very well describes and summarises the work which has been done in the ACP-EU Joint Assembly in the course of 1999. I do not have very long in which to speak, and I really only want to take up two questions. The first is about the fight against poverty, which I think is becoming an embarrassment both for the EU and the Member States. In spite of the fact that, both in the Treaty and at the UN’s meetings in Rio and Copenhagen, there was an undertaking to work to eradicate poverty in the world, the budget for development aid is, in actual fact, being cut back, when the express desire was that exactly the opposite should happen. We must put a stop to this trend. We must begin by writing off debts. We must follow up words with action. I should like us to take a leading role in this work. My second question concerns the fact that, in many contexts, we talk about the ACP countries having to learn the principles of democracy. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the resolution demand, within the context of the new agreement, that working methods should be developed and optimised. The ACP countries are to be urged to allow a whole range of political opinions to come up for discussion. I think that is a very good idea indeed, and I fully subscribe to it. However, we must also ask ourselves about our own democratic arrangements. How do these operate within the European Parliament’s delegation to the ACP-EU’s Joint Assembly? In contrast to how things are done here in the European Parliament and in Parliament’s committees, where rapporteurs are nominated and appointed to produce reports, there are no regulations whatsoever applied within this delegation to the Joint Assembly. The two large groups share all the reports and consultative documents etc between themselves. In order to change this undemocratic arrangement, we, the Group of the , have tabled Amendment No 6 in which we request that the rapporteurs appointed to produce reports and consultative documents, together with the members of working parties, should be appointed in accordance with clear, democratic rules. In this context, account ought to be taken of the smaller groups, and consideration given to introducing more representative arrangements.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Council common position lays down exposure limit values on the basis of the biological health effects. The possible long-term adverse effects of exposure are not being taken into account, because the scientific data are not beyond challenge. The common position also sets action values, measurable parameters which, if observed, will ensure that exposure limit values are not exceeded. In addition, it sets out preventive measures to reduce the risks to which workers are exposed. These rest primarily on the obligation incumbent on employers to determine and assess risks. The common position likewise makes provision for workers to be informed and trained. On the whole the common position allows for the main aims and for a number of amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading, while some aspects fall short of what is required. The rapporteur therefore considers that it would be desirable to reinstate the right to a medical examination in the event of overexposure and to strengthen the prevention system set up by the directive. This directive must also contain a provision relating to the penalties to be enforced under national legislation pursuant to the directive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have no wish to hold up the vote but this morning I raised an objection to the session minutes under Rule 148(3). Rule 148(3) requires a decision by Parliament. No such decision has been taken. I just wanted to know what happens to my objection now. Secondly, I should like to point out that we decided yesterday to adopt the Commission proposal on which I reported. We then adopted a legislative resolution rejecting the Commission proposal. The services changed this in the Minutes to ‘approves the Commission proposal’. However, item 4 still contains a sentence which contradicts the first decision because it still says that the upper ceiling is to be maintained, which was something we rejected at the outset. Because of this contradiction in the current draft minutes, I have asked that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs should be instructed to look into the matter with a view to making a general amendment to the Rules of Procedure clarifying what happens when this sort of contradiction arises. I just wanted to point out that no decision has yet been taken on my objection to the minutes, as required under Article 148 (3). I assume that the Minutes have not been approved on this point and will not therefore be approved until a later date.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, our rapporteur, Mrs Berger, has very convincingly shown that the Council common position contains a considerable number of Parliament’s demands from the first reading. I would now just mention here that any directive, for example, in response to Parliament’s demands, would apply to all consumers and not only those that live in the Member States. Furthermore, the demands for information that service providers must make available correspond very closely to Parliament’s demands, and this and other things mean I am quite prepared, on behalf of my group, to appeal to Parliament not to commence legislative conciliation regarding this matter but adopt this common position, which in many respects is very satisfactory. It might be said that we have now made a good start with regard to guaranteeing consumer protection in the internal market in financial services, and we can definitely go further in this at a later date. It is quite proper that the principle of minimum harmonisation is now being applied. That provides a guarantee that, as no Community act has yet been introduced to cover all the issues and considerations involved, Member States may deviate from it and go a little further. I do not believe that the internal market will come to any particular harm as a result. The cross-border sale of financial services is now definitely under way, and in the early stages this will represent a very good level of consumer protection.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to express my disgust and anger at the despicable anti-communist resolution adopted by the recent 16th conference of the Group of the , which likens the barbaric, monstrous Nazi-fascism to communism and calls for a new witch-hunt to begin of the members and cadres of the communist parties who remain faithful to their high ideals. The Group of the abuses and insults the memory of the millions of communists who gave their very lives to deliver mankind from the Nazi monster. At the same time, it shows that it supports, or even dictates the primitive anti-communism and blatant violations of human rights which prevail in the former candidate countries. It revives a spirit of vindictiveness which only presages hardships for our peoples. We do not forget that the persecution of communists has always been followed by the persecution of every progressive perception. The peoples do not forget that Hitler also started persecutions with the communists. With this disgraceful and extremely dangerous resolution, the Group of the really is seeking to stop the workers' fight against reactionary, anti-grass roots policies. They want to strike the pioneers of this fight, the communists who remain faithful to their ideals, because the followers are their friends and protégées.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I do not know if Mr Dupuis is a parliamentarian or a false parliamentarian, but I would like to say that I ended with a very clear question, which asked whether the Council proposed any specific initiative for promoting awareness of international humanitarian law. That was my question and I have justified it with arguments which you have all heard. I repeat that I do not know whether others are parliamentarians or false parliamentarians, but my question was not a false question.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group would naturally like to help in the rapid creation of common security rules for civil aviation. This is self-evident after the events of 11 September. In our opinion, there are four points at issue which we included in our amendments. In this respect, we want to take account of the interests of the industry, in which security and a fair distribution of the burden and expenses involved, must be the overriding factor. First of all, we must aim to achieve the highest possible level of security when it comes to the protection of airports and their users. This is also the least citizens can expect from us. Secondly, additional measures which will probably be taken at a later date, must be verified against the implementation of present legislation. This means that we will need to consider very carefully whether what is being proposed will also be viable in practice. The third point is that the Commission, in tandem with the ECAC and the ICAO, must determine whether airports in third countries, in other words, airports outside the scope of the Regulation, meet essential security conditions, for any loopholes in the new system will surface particularly at those airports. I know from my own experience how to board a plane in Albania without passing through bomb control. The fourth and last point is that we would like uniform rules to finance the proposed measures in order to prevent unfair competition. This could be government aid, provided that that is directly linked to the extra expenditure in connection with the present Regulation. It should also be demonstrated, of course, that the aid is really needed. The industry itself, operators and users, must also bear a proportion of the costs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am deeply disappointed by the Commission's statement here today. We have had more lip service to the principle of services of general interest. We were told that the Commission was going to produce a framework for services of general interest before the end of this year, now we get a promise of a Green Paper. We urgently need the framework directive, not a Green Paper. We urgently need a change in competition law which enables services of general interest, public services, to survive and to prosper, and we need a clause in our new constitution which guarantees public services right across Europe. Solidarity and citizenship are at the heart of the whole notion of the European Union. I would argue that, having taken a major step this week towards the political and geographical unity of Europe, if we are to create European citizens, we must have services of general interest universally available, accessible, affordable and of high quality. Properly understood, services of general interest are for all citizens, not just for those who are excluded, or poor or indeed disadvantaged – though obviously they are of key importance to people in that situation. Services of general interest support and sustain growth. They sustain environmental sustainability. They are a key component of any serious spatial strategy which will enable us to have sustainable rural communities and indeed liveable cities. They will provide us with healthy citizens who do not fear illness. They will enable citizens to commute and to communicate. They will enable citizens to be well-informed, to be well-educated, not only in terms of technological education, but also politically literate. All of these things are necessary if we are to create a Europe of which we can be proud and which citizens will feel they own.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Schreyer, if we are to take the Commission at its word when it makes these statements, then the new Financial Regulation is leading us into a new era of financial management, in which we will be able to resolve the problems of the past. We will simply have to wait and see. What we can, unfortunately, see at the present time is that the new era is being ushered in by the weakening of Parliament's rights. The new Financial Regulation's rules of implementation, should, according to previous rules, have been decided on in agreement with Parliament. In law, the Commission is no longer obliged even to listen to Parliament. Of course, Mrs Schreyer, we welcome the way that you are doing that any way, as these rules of implementation do not apply to the Commission alone, but are in future to be applicable to all the EU institutions. Let me pick out a number of points on which we should be asking the Commission to think again, if not to make improvements. Take the accounting officer: according to this proposal, the institutions have to select their accounting officers from the ranks of the civil service. Applications from outside will not be possible. This means that we are in fact spoiling our opportunities for even considering external candidates. You have told us, Mrs Schreyer, that the Statute prevents this. Let me turn to the accounting officer's functional independence, on which depends the reliability and credibility of the figures we have to present to the public in their capacity as contributors to the European Union. The draft has nothing to say about this. Why do you not give the accounting officer a right of appeal against attempts at interference in his work, as you have to the internal auditor? There are other aspects that cause me concern; one example is the so-called panel on financial irregularities. I hope that is not meant to compete with OLAF or even interfere with its work. Conflicts of interest are given a comprehensive and appropriate definition in the Financial Regulation, but the rules of implementation make it look as if this can be simply evaded. Finally, Article 84's provisions on the waiver or claims open the door to waiving the recovery of debts. It will be the European taxpayer who will have to cough up for these decisions, by paying additional contributions. Thanks are due to the rapporteur, Mr van Hulten, for the speed with which he has worked under enormous pressure of time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Dimas, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that compared to many areas of the earth, the European economic and social model is as successful as it is, because, in the past, we have developed an economically viable and environmentally friendly transport policy, with sensible general conditions for employees. By way of example, I would just like to mention the driving and rest periods for road traffic and working periods in the transport sector. On the one hand, this European transport policy is based on us having already dealt with the different national rules in the transport sector or on us being in the process of dealing with them, and thus creating an integrated market in the transport sector too. As an example from recent years I would mention the opening of the national rail networks to non-discriminatory use for all railway companies in the Union for freight services from 2006 or 2007. I could, alternatively, give another example of the creation of the Single European Sky from 31 December 2004. On the other hand, the European transport policy is based on having come to terms with the thinking and action behind national infrastructure networks and having created and expanded a trans-European transport network within the Union. In this vein, we adopted the largest revision of the trans-European transport network two weeks ago and thereby getting to grips with the Union of Fifteen’s transport infrastructure and adopting 30 priority projects for the Union of Twenty-Five. I am assuming that the new Member States will quickly implement the European regulations in the transport sector, if they have not already done so, in order that the internal market in transport may become a reality in all areas of the European Union. I hope that together we will be able to press ahead with and further develop the European transport policy in the next Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Attwooll’s reports are extremely important as indeed is the prospect of having as much data as possible on the fisheries sectors of the Member States. This is particularly true given that the Commission must soon prepare a report on the revision of the common fisheries policy in the year 2002. However, the fact that the updating and sending of data are purely optional and that this involves a very wide range of data and sectors may distort the final objective of the Commission’s proposal. This has happened, as previously mentioned, with the MAGPs. These have seriously prejudiced the countries which have strictly complied with them and provided the corresponding data to the Commission, compared with other countries which have failed to comply or simply not provided the data. It should be pointed out that not all the Member States have the same amount of data. Some have different sectors and, in view of the volume of data to be sent, could be prejudiced compared with those which have a smaller volume of data, if the same deadlines are set. These deadlines for submission must therefore be staggered accordingly. Much of this data is confidential, as has also been mentioned, which could affect the competitiveness of the sectors involved and their enterprises. We must therefore act very carefully in this area and guarantee the confidentiality of this data. Some of the data is also irrelevant such as that referring to the taxation of enterprises. Finally, Mr President, as I must be brief given the time constraints, I must congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Attwooll, on the important work which she has carried out within our committee.

Political group: PPE-DE