GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
It is indeed welcome of course that the interinstitutional trauma of the last few months is now drawing to a close and good that normal business is about to resume. But, as has been said before by many speakers, we must understand the way in which the interinstitutional crisis of the last few months has altered in some fundamental way the relationship between our two institutions. It is fair to say that in the past there was a traditional view that the European Parliament and the European Commission should operate in an almost permanent state of collusion to take on the vested interests of Member States and so promote European integration. This is now an outdated view which has been bypassed by recent events. From now on we should perhaps both accept and welcome a permanent creative tension between our two institutions – that, after all, is the heart of a mature parliamentary democracy. This requires changes not only in the European Commission with which we are all familiar, but also changes in the European Parliament itself. Indeed, I hope that Parliament will take this opportunity to reform our own outdated procedures and practices including the financial provisions for MEPs. Unless we, as parliamentarians, examine ourselves with the same forensic attention with which we examine other institutions we will find it difficult to reverse the shocking voter apathy which was seen in so many parts of Europe in the elections in June. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that voter indifference remains the greatest long-term threat to the European Union as a whole and perhaps to this Parliament in particular. Thus our overwhelming priority should be to re-engage the disenchanted voter: a reformed European Commission, a reformed European Parliament, interacting in a robust but mature manner, is the only way in which we have any real hope of doing so.

Political group: ELDR
Budget debates are great moments for Parliament because they afford us an opportunity to make a comprehensive review of past and future policy. Unfortunately time does not allow me to do so. I would therefore like to confine myself to just one point, that is the situation in the border regions of the Member States adjoining the candidate countries. It is beyond question that today’s border regions will benefit from European Union enlargement in the long term since there will be totally new opportunities for economic, cultural, social and administrative regional cooperation. Nevertheless, in the short term there will be tremendous pressure as they adjust to specific problems arising out of the very different levels of development, especially in the social field. I need only point out that the earnings gap between East and West is around 60%. This raises questions that did not arise with earlier enlargements and which take on a new dimension. The anticipated problems on the local labour and service markets will not be overcome without a great deal of effort. Large numbers of daily commuters will put enormous pressure on an already tight labour market – in Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania alone unemployment rates in excess of 20% are quite common. Cheap services with wage costs around 60% lower will be a tremendous challenge for SMEs and craft trades. Local and regional governments and administrations believe that the Commission’s proposed programme of assistance to border regions fails to match the scale of the challenge. I therefore welcome the inclusion of a special budget line for border regions. But I also call for additional Union funding to be made available as quickly as possible to reassure the border region citizens affected that their concerns and needs are not going unnoticed. We need a basis in law, and the Commission must create it very quickly. – Seppänen Report (A5-0342/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Durban Conference provided an important opportunity to condemn the phenomenon of racism and xenophobia, sending out a clear and powerful message, the need for and importance of which remain highly relevant today. The twentieth century bore witness to the most horrendous crimes committed in the name of racist doctrines which, we should bear in mind, took place in Europe, whose civilisation was the birthplace of the great declarations on rights. The Durban Conference, however, was much more than an exercise in the duty of remembrance. Durban reminded us that the modern world has proved itself incapable of eradicating racism and xenophobia from its societies and these, even in Europe, continue to create victims and underlie violent conflicts. Unfortunately, some people have succumbed to the Manichean philosophy, lacking in any historical rigour, that gives Europe a disproportionate and over-simplified responsibility for all the evils and oppression associated with racism, such as the use of slavery. Europe does not reject its history, neither the enlightened times nor its darker moments, but nor must it allow it to be crassly manipulated. Europe must not allow its history to become a mere settling of accounts, with the past being placed in the dock in order to exonerate the present time and conceal modern responsibilities for the persistence of the abject and anachronistic phenomenon of slavery and, more generally, of the systematic violation of fundamental rights. Judging history with the eyes of the present is a pernicious exercise in populism that simplifies the complex and, consequently, offends the truth. Manicheism seeks to segregate fanaticism and use the whole gamut of crusades that interpret history as an endless struggle between Good and Evil. A fanatic, by definition, has no interlocutors, only enemies. History is not merely the balancing of criminal offences and civil compensation laid down in current legislation. We reject this pointless exercise. The European Union’s political responsibility for affirming the universal values inherent to human dignity is both domestic and international because it is inherent to the most intimate raison d’être of our common project. Our collective European responsibility is expressed in the unreserved confirmation of our place in the front line of combat, by the universal affirmation of human rights and rights protecting against racism and xenophobia and in the determination to pursue and extend its constructive role on the international stage, by liberating humanity from all discrimination based on hatred, prejudice and ignorance.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as has been stated before, sustainable energy has many advantages. It reduces the dependence on imports from third countries, it can be generated locally and it offers prospects for regional development. But more than anything, it is clean energy. The European Union backed an ambitious wish list during the climate negotiations in November last year. Europe was prepared to take the lead, for the US could not be counted on then either. The Sustainable Energy Directive offered a good opportunity to put our money where our mouth was. At first reading, the European Parliament had opted for binding objectives and for a strict definition, so that not everything could simply fall within its scope. Unfortunately, this approach fell on deaf ears at the Council, and the European Union, which had called for domestic action for two weeks in The Hague, cried off. The compromise that is now before us is the best that can be achieved. My sincere congratulations to the rapporteur. It is sound work. This compromise requires a broad base and that is what we desperately need in the times ahead, for Europe cannot take a passive stance and wait to see what is going to happen. In the foreseeable future, we will once again have plenty of opportunity of showing that we are serious about sustainable energy. We must now prove that we are prepared to face the challenge. First of all, a common European research agenda is needed if we are to develop the technology which will speed up the transition to a low CO2 economy and if we are to learn from each other. The Sixth Framework Programme for research offers the ideal platform for this. Secondly, large-scale investments are required. Sustainable energy is often associated with small-scale solutions: a solar panel on every roof and a few windmills in every village. That is wonderful, but unfortunately not enough. Sustainable energy also requires large-scale projects, and this is why Government commitment is required. It is once again time to translate words into action in order to turn this Directive into a success.

Political group: PSE
The report on the proposal to approximate the laws of Member States relating to food supplements is one more step in the right direction of disclosing the unnatural content of foodstuffs. But quality not quantity matters. Food supplements should be ruthlessly declared and officially monitored. They should not be added to foodstuffs until they have been reported to the competent authorities. The annexed list has been drawn up for this purpose. There is no reason not to introduce the duty to report in the same way in all Member States as quickly as possible. My group has said it is in favour of implementing the White Paper on food safety in a more forward-looking way, not only to avert distorting the market, but also to implement the overall concept of the White Paper more ruthlessly. The checks and balances within intracommunity trade, which have been created by necessary laws, are inadequately enforced by the controls which are currently in place. That is why the measures to set up the already approved food standards agencies must be implemented. After BSE, inter alia, the confidence of consumers must be regained through more transparency in the food production chain, safety and proper labelling. I would like to point out that I cannot concur with the speech given by Commissioner Fischler. European agricultural policy has been reduced to the lowest common denominator. Europe must not shirk its responsibility. I am firmly convinced that the public debate is only just beginning.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I came to the Chamber this morning with a prepared speech about the situation in the airline industry. I have radically altered that, in view of what I have heard from the President-in-Office and the Commissioner this morning. Frankly, what we have heard is totally unacceptable. We are faced with a classic scenario of the Council of Ministers fiddling like some modern-day Nero while the aviation industry of the European Union burns. Madam President-in-Office, we are in a deep crisis. You, more than anybody else, should know that from your own Member State. Airlines have gone bankrupt. Others are on the brink of bankruptcy – and what response do we get? We get a suggestion that the Commission can go and sit down with the Americans and talk to them about the aid they are giving to try and level the playing field. By the time that happens there will not be a European civil aviation industry left to put on that level playing field! We need action now. We do not want fiddling at the edges, we want direct action so that our civil aviation industry can survive and have a future of its own. The response from the United States after the events of 11 September was direct and straight to the point. They made USD 5 billion available to their airlines straight away and offered another USD 10 billion in indirect aid to help them over other crises should they arise. And what did we do? We fiddled at the edges and said, 'Well, we might do this' and, as Mrs Foster said, 'Well, we said you could pay compensation for the lost days'. That is not enough. We need direct action now. What appalled me today was the tone of the contribution from the Commission and the President-in-Office. It is as if they are accepting that airlines will have to go bust and that thousands of jobs will have to go, without doing anything to stop it. Before today I suspected that Member States wanted to use this crisis to consolidate the industry, to get rid of some of the airlines. Well, today the President-in-Office all but admitted that this is the case. If that is so, then I condemn it. Members of the trade unions are with us today in the gallery. I say to them: I give you the support of my group in the quest to keep a European civil aviation industry alive. Sadly, from what I have heard today, a similar commitment from the Council of Ministers seems to be a good way off. I just wonder, Madam President-in-Office, whether people in history will remember the Belgian presidency of the year 2001 as the presidency that oversaw the demise of Europe's civil aviation industry. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I am sorry that Parliament has today voted against a proposal concerning the option of six months’ parental leave in connection with the birth or adoption of children. Under this option, a Member of the European Parliament would be replaced in accordance with rules governing definitive dismissal. Under the present Rules, an MEP can certainly be on leave, but he or she is not entitled to be replaced. In that way, the political group has one MEP fewer, with the same workload having to be distributed among fewer MEPs. That is especially hard on parties from smaller states with few MEPs. There is therefore pressure on the MEP concerned to take up his or her place again as soon as possible, to the detriment of the MEP’s family and children. In Parliament, we often state that it must be possible to combine work and family life, and we urge governments to take measures to make that possible. The same thing must also apply, of course, to Parliament as a place of work. Just as new parents in other types of work are entitled to leave, so too should Members of the European Parliament be. We must have Rules of Procedure which reflect a positive view of family and children, something not expressed by the present Rules. It might, moreover, be questioned whether the latter really are democratic, because they make it more difficult for people who are at an age when they might want children or a family to stand as candidates and assume the responsibilities of MEPs. - Report Corbett (A5-0252/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the death penalty is an abomination. It is a mediaeval phenomenon that was used by governments that were unable to guard their prisoners and therefore killed them before they could escape. In the present day, however, it is even worse; and the death penalty phenomenon is at its worst when it is used as a political instrument by governments against their opponents. The Philippines has a past history that has been a constant source of violence, and those problems are still unresolved today. This is clear even from the history of the past hundred years: the takeover of the Spanish colonies by the United States in 1898, followed by a kind of self-determination in 1946, and then the assumption of power by governments that ruled the population in a very dictatorial manner, notably the long-standing Marcos dictatorship. Since then, there have only been weak governments. There may have been changes of president, but with a powerful army in the background, and with no regard being paid to opponents, and still less to independence movements, movements that envisaged a future outside the Philippines or in a loose alliance with the other parts of the Philippines. As a result, the Philippines is constantly beset by various forms of guerrilla warfare. In the Philippines of today, the left wing may have a three-strong representation in parliament, but this is actually there semi-legally, whilst other parts of the same left wing are regarded as terrorist organisations. Under these circumstances, the death penalty is a highly dangerous instrument in the hands of a government that refuses to listen to diverging opinions and stands in the way of alternative solutions. Meanwhile, the succession of governments of the Philippines of recent times has never succeeded in solving the major problems of poverty, deprivation, oppression and violence. Everything possible should be done, from both outside and within, to give the Philippines a peaceful and prosperous future, and that cannot be done by means of the death penalty.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as I stated during yesterday's debate, I have voted in favour of the Sterckx report because it is a sound one. It does, however, give the European people an unwarranted sense of security. Yesterday, I found out that the European Maritime Safety Agency’s plan of action cannot, for budgetary reasons, be implemented. This means that both in terms of quality and quantity, there is insufficient capacity to guarantee the safety of citizens along the European coasts. Which means that all the work we have done has reached a disappointing conclusion, particularly because we know that Member States refuse to take part in introducing criminal sanctions. Consequently, what we have proposed here is lacking in substance, which is very regrettable, but it has not prevented me from voting in favour of the report. I do take the view, though, that it is necessary to clearly define responsibilities, and so this must be recorded in the Minutes of this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I fully agree, of course, with what the rapporteur has just said. I would, however, like to point out to you, Mr President, and to the House, a further consideration which the rapporteur, not being of Italian origin, was not able to highlight. Mr Musotto is already on trial in Italy for this incident. In this situation, and in many similar situations too, a principle is being overlooked inasmuch as we take as a basis – or some people do – the erroneous interpretation of what is, in actual fact, the law. The Treaties lay down that we are all subject on national territory to the laws, and therefore the immunities, which apply to the national parliaments. In our case, however, we are not taking into account – or someone, in Mr Musotto’s case, has not taken into account, and that is why I am pointing it out, Mr President – the fact that the immunity granted to the European Parliament – not to its Members but to Parliament itself – is, in any case, completely independent of national arrangements. No one – neither the Court nor the Public Prosecution Department which has opened the proceedings relating to Mr Musotto – has applied to the European Parliament for authorisation: there has been no request or notification. Mr Musotto has had to make the request and inform us of his situation himself; the Presidency and the Committee on Legal Affairs have expressed an opinion and the opinion will now, with tomorrow’s vote, provided that it is still in line with the Committee on Legal Affairs’ proposal, become a Parliamentary document. Mr President, it is essential that the outcome of tomorrow’s vote is enforced outside this House too, where the Public Prosecution Department in question is concerned, for it is essential not just that it is clear to everybody but – seeing as so much hangs on that word ‘immunity’ in my country – that it is enforced as a general principle as well as in the case in point. Parliament is autonomous, and this has been practice and consolidated case law since Parliament was first established, since Parliament was elected by universal suffrage: too many people forget this. I therefore ask, Mr President, not just for the House’s decision to be communicated to those to whom it directly relates but for a clear, precise, unambiguous principle to be established, which, thus far, has certainly not been followed by certain courts.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr García-Margallo y Marfil calls a spade a spade. He stated that the European Union does not have an economic policy. He has contributed to a good debate and I thank him for this. In considering causes and solutions, the notion of inflexibility and structural reform are often bandied about. We are forever asking the Commission, the ECB and the experts what they mean. I have been struck by the imprecise and inconsistent nature of the responses. At a remarkable conference, Mr Adair Turner, the Director-General of the CBI, said that we must be careful about dismantling the Welfare State and that the agenda for liberalisation in Europe, although useful, represents only a partial response to present challenges. Clearly, the problem of pensions will not be resolved unless there is a large increase in employment rates in Europe. It is essential to mobilise all human potential. A great deal of work will have to go into reforming the labour markets, especially as regards training and qualifications. We must, however, remember that this involves reorganisation and there will be a price to pay. We must consider why there is a lack of productive public and private investment. One of the reasons relates to the flow of capital, much of which ends up in the United States. Though the financial market might have stimulated global investment over the last decade, I think it is a fallacy to believe that the market itself will initiate a new round of investments in Europe. It does not provide for local development or for the development of SMEs and infrastructure. The European Union should be able to finance effective networks of services of general interest and develop policies on productive enterprises. We do not only have a supply problem; we also underestimate the problem of demand. Hundreds of billions in paying off goodwill are putting a serious strain on business and are hampering recovery. Far from fearing inflation, the European Central Bank should amend its target and reduce its real rates below zero. Furthermore, even if some Member States have not known how to reform their public finances or been unable to do so in time, the seriousness of the present climate justifies taking measures to support activity, including waiving the 3% rule as a temporary measure. There are two more points I would like to make. I believe war against Iraq is not just madness, but economic folly too. It will increase public deficits pointlessly in both the United States and Europe, when we want to reduce them. As one of our experts said, the United States is skating on very thin ice. The future growth of that country will require us to make even greater demands on our capital reserves. This is yet another contradiction. Europe cannot therefore just tag along with the United States. Europe must devise a policy of her own. We in Europe have our backs against the wall. The Convention, however, is silent. As for the calls for economic government, they bring to mind a scene from the film Shoulder Arms. In it a military unit is engulfed in fog, everyone is stumbling around and a soldier is heard calling for his captain.

Political group: GUE-NGL