GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we know that Olivier Dupuis has been leading this particular struggle, a fact which has also been mentioned here before. I think he deserves a big thank-you for enabling this discussion to take place. I also think that, at the moment, things look very promising indeed in the UN General Assembly. There has been a lot of support from every country, and it has been easy to reach agreement within the Council on this point. Now that the fight is being carried on within the UN, we must beware of cunning counter-proposals which perhaps look innocent enough but which will come from various directions for the purpose of watering down any strong position adopted by the UN General Assembly. We therefore need to keep track of what is happening in the UN. At the same time, we need to ensure that there is strong support from Parliament for this action and that in the future, and in Geneva too, whenever questions affecting human rights come up, we get binding decisions adopted. We also need to ensure that we can follow up the present resolution, which I hope will be approved in New York this autumn.

Political group: ELDR
The author of this report condemns the fact that the European film industry has been gradually stifled by the major Hollywood productions. We did not vote against this report as we support some of its proposals. However, we did not approve of the report either, because the root of the problem is that, as in many other industries, in art and literature for example, the film industry is, in the current economic hierarchy, simply a marketable product and that the film industry, as all other industries, has to obey the law of profitability. Contrary to what the text claims to be nationalist feelings, the problem is not that of the domination of American cinema, but that of the domination of the major corporations, over the cinema market in the United States – where independent film-makers have just as much difficulty in holding out against the production of large companies as European film-makers – and over the global market. The author of the report, a supporter, surely, of the market economy, is sensitive, however, to the irrational and harmful effect of the law of profitability in the film industry. But the law of profitability is not more rational where consumer products, such as food, clothing, medicines or even jobs are concerned – it is, undoubtedly, more harmful still.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the presence here of the European Union's two representatives for foreign policy, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is the result of the current operating requirements of the Union, not a peculiar sort of Dioscuri syndrome. This confirms that the choice to create an EU 'minister for foreign affairs' is the right choice, but I hope that he will not function later on like Janus who, according to mythology, changed his face to suit the circumstances. During the last decade, we have increasingly noticed the difference between the European Union and the USA on important issues. The International Court for crimes against humanity, the Middle East crisis, the crisis in Iraq, the general perception about preventive war and so on. In practice, this gives rise to the need for the European Union to define its own independent strategy so that, on the basis of this independence, it can redefine its relations with America and correct its mistakes. This redefinition is a sine qua non, because the axis of the Union's strategy must again rest on its relations with the USA. Good accounts make good friends. What, however, should this strategy rest on? On certain positions in principle and an equal footing. And an equal footing, in this particular case, means parity. What does parity mean? That you have your own opinion, but you also have your own capabilities so that, if necessary, you can formulate your opinion as a policy, negotiate it and obtain results. We are in a new era. So-called one-sided threats are completing older procedures and crisis conditions and thus the European Union is obliged de facto to play a new international role. And personality on strategy issues is precisely what the new international role calls for. This personality cannot result from minor moves. It must be the result of an international analysis, an international definition of its personality and its principles. I believe that we shall do well and that Mr Solana's proposals will be the first step towards the Union's subsequently acquiring independence in its relations with all the powers of the world.

Political group: PSE
I very much support those measures outlined in the report which would help prevent any further outbreak of FMD which devastated farming communities across the country and in my own region of Yorkshire and the Humber. However, there are some aspects in the report which need clarifying. Firstly, the culls were carried out in accordance with legal provisions and in full consultation with the European Commission. Secondly, the number of animals slaughtered should reflect farmers' claims for 6.5 million – not 10 million. Thirdly, there have been no prosecutions for breaches of animal welfare legislation nor was any environmental harm identified by the Environmental Agency. Fourthly, there was no evidence of a spread of infection from carcasses during transport or by personnel. Given that these points were not sufficiently clarified in the vote, whilst welcoming those provisions seeking to combat any future outbreak of FMD, I decided to vote against the final vote on the report.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, last November, you yourself said in the French press that the objective of the Barcelona Process was both simple and ambitious, i.e. an area at peace, enjoying shared prosperity, promoting the emergence of civil society while respecting human rights and ensuring the mutual understanding of different civilisations. These three points should guide us in our relations with our Mediterranean partners. It was in this spirit that the Group of the collaborated with the rapporteurs, Mrs Morgantini and our friend, Mr Naïr. For we must now set priorities that have genuine measurable objectives and we must allocate adequate resources to achieving them. We know that these priorities are, first of all, to make progress along the difficult road that is the Charter for Peace and Stability. The French Presidency tried to do this against an extremely complicated background and the Swedish Presidency, I am sure, will continue along this route. We would hope so and we shall all keep an eye on this. The Barcelona Process should not be held hostage to the Middle East peace process. Quite the opposite; the continuing tensions and the state of war between the Israeli and Palestinian people serve only to highlight the current need to improve dialogue between the countries bordering the Mediterranean. We should also step up the negotiation, ratification and implementation of the association agreements, since this contract formalises the commitments of both parties and ensures an effective partnership. We are delighted to learn that an agreement has just been signed with Egypt. Furthermore, we cannot continue investing just one euro in the South for every 10 we invest in the East. This imbalance becomes more explosive with every passing day. Firstly, of course, we must bring the reform of the MEDA financial instrument to a successful conclusion so as to improve the quality and speed of its implementation. Finally, we call for decentralised cooperation to be relaunched on new bases, so that we can fulfil the hopes and respond to the profusion of initiatives from civil society, both European and Mediterranean, because the partnership will be worth nothing if it is not a partnership of peoples. Indeed, I was interested to note that the Swedish Presidency intends to focus on the cultural, social and human aspects of the Mediterranean partnership. Commissioner, our relationship with the South needs the input of more than just words and political symbols. Our partners are expecting practical steps to be taken, as Mr Naïr stressed in his report, which I thought was particularly valuable.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Prime Minister, thank you for your presentation of the Spanish Presidency's priorities. I will comment on just one of them, namely your determination to complete the single market in the gas and electricity sectors. We have misgivings about your approach. You want the EU to be guided by five major principles: openness, liberalisation, competition, transparency and interconnection. These are fundamental to an open market. Energy, however, is not like other goods or services. It has other facets: basic social need and environmental impact. A rushed and ill-considered liberalisation would be highly dangerous. Your own country, like California, has recently suffered major power cuts following liberalisation. Liberalisation leads to a dash for gas, forcing us to import gas from some very fragile regimes. We need to ensure that indigenous energy sources can play a major role in energy supply. Renewable energies in particular need legal protection and promotion. The greatest contribution to security of supply is intelligent use of energy, one of the regulatory requirements of wise liberalisation. Please ensure that energy efficiency becomes a key national indicator at Barcelona. Uneven opening of the market between countries brings huge resentment. We strongly support your efforts to put pressure on certain governments, which keep their markets closed while they take advantage of open markets elsewhere. I look forward to your assurance that liberalisation of energy will take place in a very strictly regulated framework which protects the environment and takes heed of social consequences, some of which are very serious. Unlike Mr Evans, we think that is important.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, let me start by thanking the Commissioner for his swift visit to Belgrade and for reporting back to us so promptly. Normally speaking, I believe that that is one of the tasks of the Commissioners and I would not comment on it under normal circumstances. But I would like to make an exception and say that I appreciate the fact that he is here today. Last time we talked about Serbia, I urged MEPs to exercise some patience with Mr Kostunica because I had the impression that there had been progress almost every day, and I believe we can see evidence of this progress, up to and including yesterday when Mr Kostunica declared himself willing to assume responsibility, which I believe is crucial, for the Serbian crimes in Kosovo. I specifically have three questions for the Commissioner. Did he and Mr Kostunica discuss the position of the Kosovar refugees? As you know, there are still approximately two thousand people in Serbian prisons without any charge. Rumour has it that this situation will soon change. I was interested to hear if he had any further information on this. My second question relates to Kosovo. I share his view on what he said here about Montenegro, but the biggest problem is, of course, what to do with Kosovo. My final question is about the money. I welcome the emergency aid. Is the Commissioner convinced that the maximum sum of 250 million, which is earmarked for next year, will be enough to provide Serbia with structural aid?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, one of the first questions that must be asked in this debate is whether the financial framework proposed by the Commission is up to the task of guaranteeing economic and social cohesion and of guaranteeing the redistributive nature of the Community budget and the commitments to the less advanced countries in a European Union enlarged to 27 Member States, in which Community GDP will be reduced by more than 12% and whether economic, social and regional disparities will increase, as stated in the third cohesion report. My answer is no – this perspective is clearly not up to the task. One only has to look to the past. The financial perspectives for 1988-1992 and for 1993-1999 increased the ceiling for own resources from 1.15% to 1.27% of Community Gross Domestic Product. In both cases, the Structural Funds were duplicated in the packages nicknamed ‘Delors I’ and ‘Delors II’. Agenda 2000 maintained the ceiling for own resources and for funds, when enlargement to encompass a further six countries was already on the horizon. The Commission’s current proposal, however, maintains the ceilings set in Agenda 2000, despite the fact that the current round of enlargement involves a further ten countries, plus another two, with incomes of less than 40% of the Community average. I refer to the pressure exerted and the lack of solidarity shown by the main cash contributors to have signed the Letter of the Six, who are seeking to limit the budget to 1%. Nevertheless, Commissioner Schreyer acknowledges that her proposal, which is low, is only possible due to the process of budgetary consolidation that has taken place in the current 15 Member States: to the Stability Pact and to the reallocation of funds. But what and who will suffer as a result? This framework shows the risks both for the countries that are about to join, and for the cohesion countries, such as Portugal, given that the value of the Structural Funds for the current Member States will fall from 0.31% to 0.21% of Community income. This situation really needs to be changed, the ceiling on own resources must be increased and a response must be given to the serious problems of cohesion, poverty and of protecting greater economic and social cohesion between all the countries of the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, the clear message regarding change which the electorate sent out on 13 June is something which we EU politicians must take very seriously indeed. We must act in accordance with this message and work for change. The Intergovernmental Conference is one very good opportunity for doing just that. There is a lot to be inspired by in the Report of the Wise Men, and we ought to use the Intergovernmental Conference to carry out a proper examination of the Treaties. We need to simplify, open up, clarify and review all of the European Union’s tasks and bring about an order in which the EU concentrates on fewer things, that is to say the genuinely cross-border problems. The EU’s citizens need a democratic constitution which lists the powers that can be exercised, and in such a way that accountabilities are clear and that the principle of subsidiarity is of proper significance. With these ambitions on the eve of the Intergovernmental Conference, I believe that we can succeed in both of the EU’s major tasks: to create a larger Union which functions democratically and to win back some of the confidence our citizens have lost in the European Union, as well as the legitimacy they lent to the enterprise.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, with the start of the new generation of programmes in the area of general professional training from 2007 and the intensive involvement of the new Member States in them, it is becoming all the more important to attest, in a uniform passport, experience acquired abroad, and the capacities, competence and qualifications acquired there. I believe that it will be extremely important that what we will be adopting tomorrow we should also be able to actually provide, and it is absolutely essential that this should go hand in hand with an advertising campaign. Its use, significance and added value must be made clearly intelligible to every user and person filling in the forms. As it is the purpose of the new generation of programmes, including the Leonardo programme, to achieve 150 000 trainees a year, it is absolutely vital that training providers should know about the Europass. Since this document is a formal recognition of professional qualifications, I ask right now for the administrative costs to be kept as low as possible, as these are among the major obstacles for all young people. I see the Europass as vital, provided that it is not only an opportunity for formal qualification but also for informal competence. The really crucial factor – and let me stress this – is intercultural competence, because in future, with increasing globalisation, integration and interaction between different civilisations and cultures it will be necessary to have intercultural capacities and build on them. The mobility pass, which comprises all learning-related and transnational knowledge from abroad, should also certify this experience. Both in the learning process and in professional life, mobility is required. For young people to be able to achieve an overview of this jungle of support and exchange programmes, the competent agencies, working with the Commission, should produce guidelines for mobility, making available exchange and support programmes, the names and addresses of people to contact, as well as links, so that the added value of Europe is evident to everyone.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate Mr Blokland on his sound, clear report. After 28 years, environmental dumping is still a major problem. One reason for this is that environmental standards are not the same everywhere, the main reason for this being that there is great disagreement over what recovery actually entails. There is a lack of clear criteria. The European Commission has blundered here. It should have taken the initiative in providing clarity many years ago. Sadly, however, the Commission gave in to pressure from the waste industry, which prefers to continue to dump waste. The Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg has now made a couple of rulings in this legal void, but these do not provide a definite answer either to the question as to what exactly constitutes recovery and what does not. Incinerating everything is not recovery, in the opinion of my group. Sadly, that is now the case – by definition. Recovery implies a usefulness that is not present in the incineration of newspapers; recycling paper is much more useful. Obviously, once paper has been recycled five to seven times it can no longer be recycled, and then incineration could indeed be useful. Even the incineration of sewage sludge is deemed useful – by definition. It is highly doubtful whether that is advisable, however. If the sludge has leaked out, that would perhaps be useful, but definitely not if it is soaked in water. We must now hold this political debate. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has done so. Tomorrow we shall also be voting on amendments. Since the Commission has not provided any clarity, we shall have to do it. It makes no sense to wait for a thematic strategy before thinking of introducing further legislation. We would then be five years down the line. We should try to fill this gap now – for better or worse.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, why was it so difficult to reach an agreement? Because we were faced with the task of finding a solution for a country that has not itself played a constructive part in the process. We have known what Austria does not want since the first reading here in the European Parliament on the Council decisions. To this day I do not know what Austria does want. I only know that again they do not want the compromise. So I ask for your understanding when I say that we have dealt with the matter quite seriously. How can we find a continuation of the ecopoint system that does justice to Austria’s legitimate interests if Austria does not take part in the decision-making process? I can only say that I and my group agree with this compromise, even if the newspapers and the Parliament’s Minutes and press releases said I voted against it – I only voted against the number of points because I thought 6.9 million was rather too low. The Commission also had other calculations, but I was unable to get my way in the parliamentary delegation. I am therefore naturally for the compromise that was reached. When Mr Swoboda says we succeeded in introducing modern technology into Europe, he is right except for one country. I would like to reiterate that here at this point: because of the ecopoint system the lorries on the roads in southern Germany and northern Italy are more modern than the ones the Republic of Austria itself has licensed in its own country because it does not use the ecopoint system. Austria could have set a good example here with national rules. The directive on the introduction of Euro 3 and Euro 4 made provision for this, for using tax incentives to encourage modernisation of the HGV fleet. Then much of what has been said to us so emotionally today would have been easier to believe. I hope that the compromise will be given a large majority here tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are very unhappy with the fisheries agreements between the EU and third countries as we are aware that within this agreement with the Gabonese Government 40% of the money should be set aside for conservation measures. Due to a lack of good governance, we are concerned that these funds may not be used for the purposes for which they were intended, and thus the Conservative Delegation abstained on the final vote. - Isler Béguin report (A5-0063/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think that the elements that some of my colleagues have described as puns and shams actually reflect a delicate point: the fact that the aim of this Spring Summit is to coordinate three policies, economic, social and sustainable development, whereas the Treaties do not provide the legal bases to enable us to act in these three areas at once. It is therefore clear that our proposals look like pious hopes or we appear to be reaffirming our will while we know that we do not have the tools to achieve it. Therefore, underlying our debates and the Spring Summit that is being prepared, there is a fundamental challenge involving reforming the Treaties with a view to the new Constitution for the European Union. I think that if we want to arrive at a structured concept by determining how these three elements can form a sound cycle of development in Europe, we would be well advised to look more closely at what is happening in the services of general interest sector. If there is a triangle, services of general interest are the barycentre of it. Let us think about that and look at how our European policies are operating today. President-in-Office of the Council, we will not achieve any results by trying, on the one hand, to speed up the construction of the internal market, with all that it involves in terms of opening up to competition and, ultimately, privatisation, and by seeking, on the other hand, to maintain the balance by arguing that it will be done in the interests of the public, of social cohesion, etc. We have a duty to evaluate what has been done, and that will help us to think about how economic activity, which is supposed to fulfil fundamental rights and ensure social and territorial cohesion, can or should be considered and integrated into the new Treaties. Where is the evaluation? Where is the framework directive for services of general interest? Where are our proposals to strengthen Article 16 of the Treaty, particularly regarding the resources and tasks of these services of general interest? I think that if we are capable of moving forward in our discussion, without being dogmatic, looking at what is happening and what it would be appropriate to do, our ideas will begin to take shape. You know, brains are indeed precious, but what counts above all is collective intelligence, and that is what we especially have among users, employees and operators, just like among elected representatives who are reminded every day of the cost of the closure of public services in their countries. Frankly, I think that this is a very important indicator that we need to use and take advantage of for the years to come.

Political group: Verts-ALE