GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to begin by agreeing with all those who have pointed out that the matter we are discussing concerns the very essence of European citizenship. We might say that this right contributes towards a practical and concrete expression of the concept of European citizenship, in that the great challenge facing us at the moment is to turn this legally recognised right into a practical reality that is implemented in citizens’ everyday lives. I also agree with those who have pointed out that the transposition of these directives has taken place too slowly, or even incorrectly in some cases. In addition, we must also face up to the difficulties arising out of implementation of the directive on special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, in that there should be guidelines not only for the Member States, which have so far interpreted the provisions of the directive in quite a variety of ways, but also for the citizens regarding the rights conferred on them. The Member States may impose restrictions on the right to free movement of Community citizens, particularly in matters of entry to and expulsion from their territory as well as the issuing or renewal of residence permits, where this is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Member States cannot, however, abuse such prerogatives in a European Union based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and particularly respect for the European Convention on Human Rights as well as, soon, a Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is for this reason, then, that these measures of exception to free movement have been subject to restrictive interpretation. Finally, Mr President, I should like to express my agreement with my colleague Hernández Mollar when he gave his support to the proposal from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to try to integrate the various texts into a single regulation. This could be implemented directly and would be a primary document on European citizenship, which would offer all the necessary information not only to citizens regarding their rights of citizenship but also to the government departments in each Member State that have the task of implementing existing legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would very quickly like to go back to the events which took place during the explanation of votes or during the point of order this morning. I am very new to this Parliament and I would just like to express my deep disappointment at the incident. Of course, I respect the Rules of Procedure and democracy, but the strategic, political action of a mere forty or so Members has prevented us from voting on Ethiopia. On behalf of this Parliament, I would like to apologise to the people of Ethiopia, to the men, women and children who are suffering in a tragic situation and in relation to whom Parliament was prevented from adopting a position this morning. I am extremely concerned. We were able to vote on the last two items, which were also urgent, but, in all honesty, I would have preferred to have voted for the people of Ethiopia and to have lent them the support of this Parliament. Once again, I apologise to the people of Ethiopia.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's implementing powers: it all sounds so harmless and yet it conceals a multitude of problems that all of the committees that deal with European legislation have to contend with, and have been doing so for two decades. The Council Decision of 1999 reduced the Babylonian confusion of over 20 variants of such committees in the Commission to three procedures, namely management, regulatory and advisory procedures. The decision also laid down criteria for deciding which committee procedure was appropriate. All of the relevant European Union legislation, consisting of several hundred directives and regulations, had to be brought into line with it. Mrs Frassoni’s report in March 2003 – just a few weeks ago – brought this work to its conclusion. The consequences of our consultations today would be that once again all of the European Union's legislation, that is once again several hundred legal instruments, would have to be brought into line with the new texts. Should the Convention – and here I am talking about Article 202 – propose alternative solutions to the ones that we are discussing today, then this process of adapting all European legislation would have to be repeated. Once again, as with the Lamfalussy procedure, we are only debating an interim solution. This is expressed very clearly in Amendment No 1 of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. In my judgment, the Commission proposal does not enable us to achieve the objectives of transparency and improved legislative supervision of the Commission when it enacts implementing provisions. On the contrary, the proposed changes are designed to remodel Parliament's existing right of supervision as a hearing procedure pure and simple. De facto the Commission's proposal amounts to abolishing the management procedure, which also considerably curtails the Council’s and the Member States' influence and supervisory powers. This might well not matter to us in Parliament if our influence and supervisory powers were enhanced accordingly. That is the intention of Parliament's amendments. But the Commission, as Mr Corbett has already said, is refusing to delete an essential word, namely 'possibly'. This means that in the future it may only possibly take into account the substantive demands made by Parliament with regard to the implementing legislation. We cannot support this as a Parliament and are in complete agreement with the rapporteur here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all welcome to our Belgian neighbours here in Strasbourg and best wishes for a successful Presidency of the EU. I must say that what I heard sounded good. It was as if I were hearing our good friends Leo Tindemans, Wilfried Martens and Jean-Luc Dehaene, , but that places you in a very positive pro-European tradition. The Benelux countries are among the founders of the European Community and that already implies a good deal of idealism and vision. That is also necessary alongside the realism that we also always require. I should like to make two comments in this debate. I should like to say something about the after-effects of the Nice Treaty. I should like to say something about asylum, migration and human rights policy. And then I shall address Mr Michel. Where the Treaty of Nice is concerned, what has gradually emerged is that Nice produced a botched job and that it is necessary to do that work again. The Belgian Presidency has resolved to set this process in motion at the Laeken Summit. It is important to us that there should be no false start as regards both the agenda and the method. I believe that it is really necessary to reform the complicated voting procedure and the many methods of decision-making in the Council. I also believe, and I agree completely with what Mr Verhofstadt said, that the European Parliament needs to be given co-decision powers in all legislative areas. On that point, a deplorable chain of events was, in fact, broken at Nice. Where the method is concerned, we opt, as you know, not for the concept of a forum but for that of a convention. I have a critical comment on this. I cannot understand why that convention should draw up three scenarios in advance. Because I gather that that is the intention. Surely the convention can do that when it meets. The convention for the Charter worked well. When you talk of three scenarios, I have the feeling that a divide and rule policy is being deployed whereby the Council can always choose one of the three. Finally, a comment about the asylum and migration policy. What I did not find in Mr Verhofstadt’s list in that area is the ‘safe countries’ policy. A great evil besetting the European Union is that we all have different ideas on the subject. I should like to ask if that could be added to the list of five. We shall be having a large-scale debate on the subject in Parliament in September. At that time we shall probably be able to go into greater detail. For the rest, I wish you every success with your policy. It is a good start. Make sure that you are able to bring things to a successful conclusion. IN THE CHAIR: MR MARINHOVice­President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Morillon and Mr Cohn-Bendit on their excellent report, which has tried to incorporate everybody’s contributions. However, despite the work done, our group cannot vote in favour of the report because certain elements we consider to be important are lacking and this could be corrected. One of them relates to the respect the European Parliament must show for international law. The European Parliament draws up laws and directives and therefore its relationship with the UN must be one of respect and support. We are therefore concerned about the fact that a crucial issue such as the holding of a self-determination referendum for the Saharaoui people is not suitably dealt with in this report. This would mean guaranteeing and promoting greater democratic respect in that region, both for the countries of the Maghreb and in their relations with the European Union. We are therefore presenting an amendment in this regard. The second issue, which is also very important, and which is partly included in the report, is the recognition that our influence and participation in the economic development of the Maghreb is contradictory. We are investing and increasing trade and, nevertheless, the consequence of that investment is that the rationalisation of the countryside, and that of trade and services, is creating more unemployment and depriving young people of their future prospects, which is leading to an increase in emigration, which is horrendous but understandable. We believe that the fact that this report does not adequately deal with this crucial phenomenon is a shortcoming which must be corrected, together with others which relate to improving democratic conditions, as other speakers have already said.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would just like to point out that I noticed some omissions in the Minutes of the sitting of 8 April, at which I was present. These concern Questions to the Commission. I would be grateful if you could ensure these shortcomings are remedied.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, seeing the great care taken by the Ecofin Council to anticipate the long-term impact that funding pensions has on public finances makes one wish that equivalent care could be demonstrated with regard to sustainability, in order to prevent the deplorable long-term effects, for example, of the lack of fiscal harmonisation or of investments in the nuclear industry. Do not think, however, that the Group of the is suggesting that we entrust the future of pensions to the Ministers of Finance. We support those in the Commission, in some Member States and in Parliament, who see the future of pensions and of social protection primarily as social issues, as key elements of the model, which must be strengthened, and which cannot be reduced to its financial dimension. To hear some people talk, we might wonder if the prospect of living increasingly longer, and by ‘living longer’ I mean in good health as well, is not the greatest disaster threatening the citizens of the twenty-first century. The report by Mr Cercas Alonso has the merit of not skirting the crux of the issue and of the debate. A certain increase in spending on pensions in the GDP is certainly unavoidable because of greater life expectancy, but the rapporteur quite rightly emphasises that changes in the rate of employment is a decisive factor. In this context, he recommends taking account of the rate of economic dependence and not only of demographic changes. Given the prospect of full employment, this takes us away from alarmist rates, which clearly seek to legitimise new forms of finance, raised individually and through capitalisation. The report also emphasises the invaluable role of guaranteed pension systems in combating the insecurity and social exclusion of the elderly, particularly women and workers who have had long periods of atypical work and who should be guaranteed a sufficient level of income to lead a decent life. Lastly, the report warns against any attempt to undermine public pay-as-you-go pension systems. These systems guarantee intergenerational solidarity, which is essential to social cohesion and they enable real-time adjustments to be made to contributions, regardless of the fluctuations of the stock market situation. This is why our group recommends that we adopt this report, without undermining its current balance. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Antonione, Commissioner, the democratic deficit in the EU is, in fact, often talked about. Decisions are taken behind closed doors by a circle of ministers, without ourselves, as citizens, being guaranteed political influence via an open debate and without ministers being held directly responsible to the voters for the decisions they make. That is the deficit that we in Parliament must make up, and Parliament’s influence on the budget and budget control are crucial in this area. It is, of course, not the governments that we see taking the lead in demanding reforms and better management of EU finances. It is Parliament that does this. The proposal by the finance ministers, whatever status it may have, involving a desire to uncouple Parliament from the budget process, is therefore a very embarrassing attack on democracy, and I hope that the EU Heads of State and Government will acknowledge this and reject the proposals. I hope that they accept the Convention’s proposal concerning the budget procedure, for it is balanced in a way with which they can be satisfied. At present, Parliament has, of course, real influence, both upon the annual budget and the financial estimates. Under the Convention’s proposal, we should be surrendering a little of the latter form of influence, for we can, at present, say at any time that we do not accept the multiannual budget framework but are returning to annual budgeting, for that is what is specified in the Treaty. Parliament has voluntarily entered into multiannual agreements, and we can accept these agreements in future becoming law, but on condition that we are given influence over the financial estimates and, of course, on condition too that we are given influence over the agricultural budget. That is the balance in the Convention’s proposal. Parliament gives something and receives something in return. I also look forward to the Danish Government’s denying press reports that it would support one of the finance ministers’ proposals, namely the proposal to introduce unanimity in the European Council when the financial estimates are adopted, for that cannot be right. We are in danger of deadlock in which the work of reform, including the reform of agricultural policy, is blocked. Denmark’s point of departure is that the European Parliament must have greater, not less, influence over the budget. This is something on which we must stand firm.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, before speaking on the subject of Iraq, I would like to honour the memory not only of Mr Vieira de Mello, but also of that of one of his fellow-workers, Mr Jean-Sélim Kanaan. Mr Kanaan had worked for the European Parliament as an assistant to Pierre Pradier, and for the Commission, particularly in Burundi. Let me now turn to Iraq, where I believe there are great dangers. There are those who say that the United States should admit their mistakes. Where is that going to get us? Personally, I do not want to be in the right and tell the Americans that they were wrong, because there was, at the time, one question to which we had no answer, and it was this: ‘How do we rid ourselves of Saddam Hussein?’ We may have been right to oppose the war, but we did not come up with any alternative way of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. In this respect, then, Commissioner Patten is right: the Iraqi people have the right to live in peace without Saddam Hussein. Today, Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, but the Iraqi people are not yet living in peace. In such a situation, what matters is not whether or not we are satisfied with what the Americans are doing, but that we help them and the British to emerge from their isolation. Whether or not we were right beforehand, it is for us to take the most intelligent approach now. That, alas, is too expensive, which is why Great Britain is currently reviewing its position. This is the devil of a business, being more about money than about principles, but that is life. Even if the UN were to adopt a resolution tomorrow, and the United States were to hand over operational command to it, it would not find it a simple matter to pacify Iraq. The UN is not God, and nor, for that matter, is Europe. What do you do in a situation like that, when a society that once knew such power has now completely fallen to pieces? There are those who say we have no right to occupy a country. To them I would reply that the Allies had the right to occupy Germany. If the United Nations had decided that Iraq had to be occupied, that would have been legitimate. The problem is that the UN has come to no such decision. There are times, unfortunately, when you have to occupy a country if you want to overturn a dictatorship. I would welcome it if, today, the European Union were to put forward proposals by, for example, organising a conference on stability and peace in the region, which would involve Iran and other nearby countries. This would allow the United States and Great Britain to slowly find their way back to the UN. By concentrating the debate on the rights and wrongs of a UN resolution, we are in fact in a deadlock, as neither side is at present able to overcome yesterday’s divisions. What this means is that we have to work towards a solution by taking a different route, that of a conference on stability and peace in the region, and then hand over to the UN, which will take charge of rebuilding democracy in Iraq. I do not, unfortunately, believe that next year’s elections will bring us any closer to solving the problem of how to stabilise that country.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Copenhagen Summit and its decision to enlarge the ΕU was a very important act of imperialist expansionism. The victims of this enlargement, who will swell the ranks of the exploited, will be the workers and small and medium-sized farmers in the enlarged ΕU, especially those in the new Member States, which are joining on even worse terms. The main purpose of making such derisory resources available is to strengthen the power of capital and tear down any social achievements over from the era. The fact that communist parties, support for communist ideas and the use of communist symbols are banned and senior communist party members and veterans of the anti-fascist movement have been gaoled in countries which supposedly meet democratic criteria is quite in keeping with the pseudo-democratic sensibilities of the leaders of the ΕU. The shotgun imposition of the – basically partition-based – Annan plan in Cyprus is also unacceptable and signals an end to the UN resolutions and any hope of a fair and viable solution. Not only did the summit provocatively ignore the question of war with Iraq, and later with other countries, it pushed ahead with the militarisation of the ΕU and reinforced the new ‘anti-terrorist’ ΝΑΤΟ. A final decision was taken on operations by the European army in the FYROM, with similar operations planned in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Political group: GUE-NGL
chairman of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Madam President, on behalf of the committee I have the honour to chair, I would ask that this topic be reinserted on this week's agenda, since, contrary to the advice given to the Conference of Presidents last week, the Justice and Home Affairs Council will be discussing it at its meeting this Friday. This evening the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs will adopt a text, drafted in cooperation with the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which we believe is a strong basis for a Parliament resolution on this matter. If it is not possible to have a debate in plenary with the Council, we request authorisation to submit this text to the plenary in the form of a draft recommendation for a vote on Thursday, pursuant to Article 39 of the Treaty and Rule 94 of our Rules of Procedure.

Political group: ELDR
I should like first of all to thank Mr Bowe for the work that has been done on the recommendation for second reading on amendment of the directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. I think it is a very competent piece of work, and I think some important improvements have been made to the common position. I shall single out the points I think are most important. First and foremost, I think it is right that we should now have an actual ban proposed on the use of substances which can produce resistance to antibiotics. I think it is important for health reasons. The second point I would make is that, unlike Mr Liese, I am in favour of including proposals to the effect that measures should, if possible, be taken to prevent gene-transfer from GMOs to other organisms, otherwise known as GMO contamination. I also think it is important that risks should not be assessed on a case-by-case basis when applications and requests concerning consents are examined. Instead, an attempt should be made to carry out an overall assessment of the accumulated effects of the many consents which are issued upon the fertility of the soil, the food chain, biological diversity and the health issues which are of importance to us as human beings. I think that is a major flaw in current practice in this area. In this connection, I also think that consents ought to be reviewed every ten years, so that they can only be issued for up to ten years at a time. In that way, we can be properly sure that the necessary monitoring is carried out. I also think it is right that this proposal should provide us with legislation ensuring that, whenever vertical legislation is enacted in specific areas, the same conditions regarding risk assessment and monitoring should be complied with as also apply in the case of the general directive. Finally, I would call attention to the question of objective liability. I agree with the original proposal in Mr Bowe’s report to the effect that businesses seeking consents should be made objectively liable and that liability insurance must also be taken out in connection with an application for consent. If insurance cannot be taken out to cover such circumstances, then the risk in granting a licence is too great. I hope we shall see the adoption of these amendments designed to tighten up on the common position. If they are adopted, I also believe we shall obtain a legal basis for granting future consents for GMOs which serves our interests and which will provide the necessary security. In that way, we shall, in actual fact, obtain the legal basis that should have been in place before the first consent for new GMO crops was issued. In my opinion, the present legal basis is far too weak.

Political group: PSE