GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have all stressed how especially important the Spring Summit is in view of flagging growth, the internal market not yet being complete and the Lisbon objectives becoming ever more nebulous and people having less and less confidence in them. I see the Lisbon strategy as being Europe's response to globalisation. The Lisbon strategy is our regulatory framework, because it links the market to social responsibility and the sustainability of the environment, which is how this regulatory model distinguishes us from the United States and from other continents. What is known as the eco-social market economy is the European regulatory model. We must stop apportioning blame. We must make it clear where responsibilities lie – who is responsible for meeting what target and by when. We need definite targets rather than woolly statements. In which areas do we want to be Number One and by what date? Who has to achieve what subsidiary goal and by when so that the jointly determined European objectives might be fulfilled? What the Spring Summit should do is specify how the Lisbon objectives are to be broken down country by country, and have these objectives incorporated in every statement made by governments and every labour convention entered into by them. There is no contradiction between the Stability and Growth Pact and the Lisbon strategy; on the contrary, without the Pact, the Lisbon strategy could not be fulfilled. This means that we have to keep on ensuring that the internal market becomes a true internal market and that sufficient account is taken of small and medium-sized businesses' potential as the foundation of Europe's economic structure and a source of new employment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report and point out that I am speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party and on behalf of a fellow Member who has not been able to speak. There can be no question that the Group has always defended the fundamental rights and values that we in the European Union represent. The European Union promoted by the founding fathers in the 1950s was not intended to be an economic union, but a union based on certain fundamental values which we must guarantee, as the rapporteur has said. My group largely supports his report, although several amendments have been tabled, but we will vote in favour of the proposal the rapporteur has made in this report. I am delighted that in Nice some of these values were incorporated into the constitution and that provision was made for establishing a mechanism under the terms of Article 7 in order to guarantee that values are respected within the European Union. I come from a country which has been attacked by terrorists over the last 30 years, and which, furthermore, was savagely attacked on 11 March, and, as the rapporteur has said in his speech, terrorism can only be tackled by means of more values, more democracy and more fundamental rights and the European Union must, therefore, be capable of guaranteeing respect for these values within the Union, in order more effectively to combat terrorism, attacks on our values and attacks on European values. I would like to say finally – in relation to the rapporteur's report – that we share the principles expressed in it – trust, priority, equality and publicity – which can allow us to make progress on establishing a mechanism which prevents certain States from failing to respect the values which are so important to defend in the European Union, and in this very Parliament more than anywhere else. We also support his proposal to establish an interinstitutional mechanism to promote dialogue between Parliament and the Council as from the next legislature.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to welcome Commissioner Patten ́s statement today. It was a model statement which was at once calm and rational and strong and balanced, outlining the situation as it exists and the steps that are necessary on all sides to create a sustainable peace in the region. I am puzzled by the Council's excessive caution. I say 'excessive' caution. I am not arguing against caution, but the Council expressed views today which were not balanced. I have also been to Jenin and seen the destruction there, the destruction of homes and of people's lives, the burying of people in the rubble of their own homes. I would like to suggest one practical thing here today. What we were asked for was heavy equipment to enable the people in Jenin to dig out the bodies that are still there. There was no heavy equipment when we were there yesterday. I appeal for urgent aid in that regard. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to avoid extreme language and extreme solutions. We need to demonstrate that the Sharon extremism will not bring security to the Israeli State, nor will Palestinian suicide bombers bring a Palestinian State into existence. Only through slow and painful negotiations with compromises can that occur, only then can the Israelis and Palestinians be secure in their own states. I met with ambassadors in Tel Aviv, moved on to Jerusalem to meet Israeli peace groups and then on to Jenin to talk to the residents there. The objective of the Sharon Government at this point in time is the destruction of any possibility of a Palestinian State. I have no doubt about that at all. Europe, therefore, must bring pressure to bear on Sharon and his government to see that this is not a viable option for Israel. In conclusion, the most important and effective weapon we have is the Association Agreement. What we are calling for is the suspension of that agreement, not a suspension of all contact with Israel, but a suspension of the preferential arrangements that Europe has with Israel so that at least it will begin to recognise that we are prepared to take action. It is a moderate approach which can be stepped up or cancelled when progress is made by Israel in withdrawing her troops from the Palestinian area, giving free access to humanitarian aid and free access to the United Nations mission in Jenin and elsewhere. There are many other conditions we could perhaps apply. There is no problem about an exit strategy. We simply state what our conditions are and what is necessary in order to begin talks under the quartet based on Oslo.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the EU-US partnership is of crucial importance. We are each other’s largest trading partners and by cooperating the EU and the US can play a decisive role in tackling international trade issues. Now that Europe is on its way towards greater unanimity in the foreign and security field too, the necessity of working together will grow even greater. In fields like environmental protection and limiting CO2 emissions cooperation will be decisive. In the Dutch press, there was an appeal to President Bush in letter form from what the author himself called “the profitable part of American industry” asking the president not to listen only to inefficient companies when environmental decisions were involved. Robust environmental legislation makes companies more innovative, more technology-oriented and more efficient. At yesterday’s Kangaroo Group lunch, Mr Zoellic said that in his view and that of his government not every problem in the private sector needs to be solved by the government. If I combine both things, it may be possible to reach new agreements with the US. Whether an agreement is called Kyoto or New York is a matter of supreme indifference to us. But we must get down to work together. My final point concerns parliamentary relations. For some years, we have been enjoying better relations. The Legislators Dialogue has gained momentum and has begun to bear fruit. However, since a new Congress has taken office with all the changes in personnel that that involves, it seems difficult to make real contacts. The collective memory on the US side appears to have been erased. We are starting completely from scratch. That is all the more regrettable since our trade disputes could have been effectively prevented by the “early warning” system within the TABD and the Legislators Dialogue. It is still too early to express real concern. See my observation as part of a European “early warning” system. A light is on, but it is not yet red. But what will happen in a world where the word of a superpower is no longer worth the paper it is written on?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the last in the line of speakers, I would like to draw your attention to one aspect which has not yet been dealt with at length, namely the patenting of live organisms. Many third-world countries have objected to this, as this practice makes deep inroads into the very existence of millions of farmers. If applications for patents could be made on existing agricultural crops, this would mean farmers becoming more dependent on large companies. They would need to pay for sowing seed, which would affect their very raison d’être. As a result of this, food safety would be in the balance. A large group of third-world countries, Kenya being the spokesperson, has called for a review of the TRIPS Agreement. In order to accommodate the developing countries, it would be a good idea to actually carry out this review. But this is not the only reason. From an economic point of view, there are major disadvantages attached to the current practice, as this can lead to a handful of companies being in unacceptable positions of power. There are also ethical objections to the patenting of live organisms. These objections have also been tabled in the Council when the Biotechnology Directive was laid down. This is why I would like to ask Commissioner Lamy, and Parliament, to take seriously the objections raised by third-world countries, but also the ethical and economic objections raised within Europe. An assessment of the present regulation would be a first step.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should also like to congratulate Mr Sturdy on his report. We have made a good few improvements: we have stronger rules for residue and we have better definitions of good agricultural practices. It was interesting to hear what the Commission said in relation to modern agriculture that these residues are an unavoidable factor. However, looking at what has been proposed, we are saying that priority should be given to non-chemical crop management, which everybody should welcome. With regard to aggregate MRLs, if, for example, there are two or three different pesticides, but they are all below the MRLs, the combination should say that they should not be on the market. That is the same logic that we have been pushing for years in relation to drinking water. We are glad to see that this has now been accepted. There are lots of pesticides, but no proper analysis is available. If there is no valid lab analysis and no detection methods available then the pesticides have to be taken off the market. Authorisation must be withdrawn on these. If new scientific evidence reveals a risk, the same should apply. Some of the amendments we tabled in committee asked for zero tolerance for imported products. These were rejected as the majority thought it was necessary to give specific MRLs for imported products that are not grown in the EU, such as tropical fruits. We have tabled this amendment again. I say to Mr Sturdy that the purpose of this amendment from Mr Lannoye is not about stopping imports but about protecting consumers. With regard to the amendment asking for temporary MRLs to be set at the lowest level of those suggested, it was not voted on in committee because it was supposed to be included in the compromise. We have tabled some amendments again. We hope we can get support for them because they would improve the overall end result.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, from G8 to recreational craft, and from recreational craft to uprooted people. That is what you might call a range of subjects. There are certainly sound reasons for having such a range, without my explaining in more detail what I mean. Until I heard Commissioner Liikanen commenting on recreational craft, I was quite convinced that it was these that would win the debate in the press. After hearing his contribution, however, I am, in spite of everything, a little less certain of that. He did in fact manage to talk the subject down. In the previous debate on the G8 Summit, we of course discussed the usefulness of the global meetings. As Commissioner Patten strongly emphasised, these are important, but it is just as important that these meetings should be followed up, and the present debate might well be said to be an example of such follow-up. It is also an example of how – one might almost say – tediously practical the work of democracy also is and of how it is therefore difficult for democracy to compete with the more violent and spectacular global demonstrations. Nonetheless, this work is absolutely essential. The proposal no doubt also emphasises very clearly, however, that the only really effective method we have in this context is effective prevention, and I should like to have seen this emphasised a little more. The proposal also shows – and I think this is a good thing – the need to involve the NGOs in the work. Without them, success will elude us. I shall therefore just conclude by saying that – like the previous speaker, Mr Blak – I too think it is heart-breaking to see the developments in Afghanistan. I can clearly remember the first time I heard about them on the radio. Developments there increasingly cause one to despair, as does the fact that the international community has so few opportunities for intervening in time.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on the issue of Iraq, Europe is not divided. Its governments are, but its public opinion is not. As we all know, the majority of European public opinion is united against war. So the discussion on the division of Europe, in relation to the CFSP, must take this aspect into account. And, incidentally, the European citizens should take this into account when casting their votes in the forthcoming elections. However, there is an aspect which worries me particularly and that is the high number of governments of European candidate countries who have joined an operation which, rather than reinforcing European values and principles, supports the warlike approach of a non-European superpower whose values, such as the death penalty and the rejection of the International Criminal Court, are not our values. Having said that, I also have faith in the public opinion of those candidate countries. I am less optimistic when it comes to the gulf separating us from the United States, or rather the gulf which the Bush Administration is widening every day. I believe it is a bad sign that some sections of the so-called ‘liberal’ press in the United States are tending to jump on the war bandwagon and that in doing so it is furthermore using insults which are not supposedly worthy of it. Thus, regrettably, we have recently read this sentence in the New York Times: 'Only an imbecile or perhaps a Frenchman could be insensitive to Colin Powell’s arguments'. Well, I would declare myself French and insensitive. (Applause) This francophobia is being cultivated alongside germanophobia. It has just been said insultingly of the other unfortunate partner from the old Europe: 'The Germans do not play any important role in international decision-making', said by Richard Perle, one of Minister for War Rumsfeld’s tough advisers. Well, in view of this I would declare myself to be German and a Social Democrat. (Applause) In my opinion, though, the greatest and most significant blunder is from Richard Boucher, spokesman for the State Department. As you know, Bin Laden has just said in a very timely manner that, in the face of the aggression being prepared, all Muslims should support the Iraqis, despite the fact that the latter are s and apostates. Rather than coming to the opposite conclusion, Mr Boucher not only states that this proves the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but he also adds: 'We have already said that this is a fight by civilisation to protect the civilised countries'. So it now turns out, Mr President, dear friends, that the Bush Administration sponsors war between civilisations. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The UK Conservatives have always believed that more emphasis should be placed within the criminal law system on looking towards supporting the needs of victims of crime. We therefore applaud those sentiments in the Sörensen report which support our view. However, because the report also suggests changes in the structures of the voting procedure in the European institutions, and has serious resource implications, we cannot give it our overall support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the right to equal treatment and protection against discrimination is one of the fundamental human rights. It lies at the very heart of everything we believe in in the European Union. I subscribe to the objective of the present proposal of extending this right to include the professional environment. I am aware that there are also arguments in favour of guaranteeing European legislation for equal treatment within one market. But beyond that, I am beginning to find myself at odds with the rest of the opinions in this House. In my view, Parliament has overdone it when it comes to the rather restrained legislation which the European Commission would have wanted to submit. Surely this proposal has been drafted with the intention of applying it within an economic sphere of business and trade? It is simply not practical if you run a small business, and someone discovers after twelve months that he was discriminated against in a selection procedure which involved forty candidates, to keep each and every file from that period and then investigate exactly what happened during that selection procedure once more. They might not even remember the candidate involved. Surely this is not acceptable. Why do we in Parliament never think about the practical implications of the legislation we draft? I hope something can as yet be salvaged in the process with the Council and Commission which is to follow. I would now like to make a request to the Commissioner. Commissioner, the inquiry has been followed up by a fiche d'impact. In my view, this fiche d'impact – and I am involved a great deal with small and medium-sized businesses in this Parliament – is one big scandal. It amounts to one official having spent one afternoon behind a desk dreaming up all kinds of positive effects which in no way tally with reality. I call for a real fiche d'impact: an actual enquiry into the consequences for small and medium-sized businesses of this directive as it has been laid down by this Parliament, and not a would-be story made up by some official who has never set foot in a business, and I would welcome this before this directive becomes legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this proposal relates to an extremely delicate area. We simply have to note that, basically, the system of inward processing breaks with the principle of European preference or, if you like, the system of Community preferences. This is a very delicate area and, furthermore, the system of inward processing, in its application, is extremely complex and slow and therefore harms numerous small- and medium-sized businesses. In this delicate area, our decisions, as politicians, should be directed towards maintaining the competitiveness of the European food industry in the world and towards strengthening the close links between the processing industry and the producers of raw materials. The greatest responsibility in this area falls to the Commission. We require a creative and flexible Commission, capable of judging changes in the markets, measured and, at the same time, imaginative. We need a Commission which gives priority to the European farm model and the defence of small farmers, but the truth is that so far all the Commission has demonstrated in this area has been its opacity, its discretionary approach to legislation and very little else. As for the European Parliament, Mr President, both the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development and its chairman, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, have worked seriously and prudently on this difficult report. Mr Souchet has produced a wonderful report, and I congratulate him on his work as rapporteur. He has been correct, specifically in his proposals to limit and rationalise the use of the system of inward processing by adapting it to the situation of the markets, the regulatory framework and the budgetary framework. All of this is correct, as well as his demands for exemptions in favour of small exporters. Many thanks, therefore, to the rapporteur and the European Parliament, and I hope that the Commission will improve its work in this area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group is not satisfied with the resolution that was passed today. It is actually well over a year since the resolution on Echelon was passed by this Parliament. It seems that very little has been done to ensure the public's right to privacy within the European Union. Also, if we actually look at what the Council has been doing recently with a view to bringing telecommunications interception capabilities in line with new technologies, this is also an infringement on the individual's right to privacy. What is most disappointing is that the Council has not acted on what the Parliament said in its initial report after the temporary committee of enquiry. It is completely unacceptable that European citizens are exposed to such sweeping interceptions of communication. The Council should actually do something about it. The resolution passed this morning was much too weak and we are very disappointed that the points that our group proposed were not included in that resolution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the meeting of the Stockholm European Council is a very important stage for us as it will reconcile two of our major concerns: a competitive economy and the defence of a social model. However, it seems to us that the documents which will be submitted to the Stockholm European Council may be excessively numerous and that we may have to make more progress in preparing for these meetings. A large number of documents is not necessarily the best guarantee of a future strategy. From this perspective, I would like to recall the proposals made by Parliament for a merger between the Economic and Financial Committee and the Economic Policy Committee. I think there is food for thought here. We are gratified moreover by the adoption of a restricted list of structural indicators. It is the right course to follow for progress to be made at European level. To simply talk about structural reforms does not mean very much; we need to know which reforms we are talking about. And it seems to us that everything that concerns human investment must be of paramount importance. Structural reforms must be based first and foremost on the notion of human investment. Faced with an ageing population, which you referred to, Mr Prodi, it seems to us that we neglect at our peril investment in education, in mobility, in languages, in lifelong learning, and in research too, which you mentioned when you spoke just now on patents and Galileo. President of the Commission, allow me to remind you, however, of the commitments we undertook, especially in Nice, regarding the social agenda. It seems to us that this is a very important issue on which we must make progress in the European Union, including at the Stockholm European Council.

Political group: PSE