GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, a strong Authority that can avail itself of all the wealth of Europe’s experience, ability and professionalism: if that is the accepted and agreed principle underlying the European Food Authority, the principle of separation between risk assessment and risk management is not, in my opinion, likely to apply very much, in terms of either timing or purpose. From this angle, the establishment of a European Food Authority represents the base line, the first step towards bringing protection up to speed and responding to consumers’ demands and also their fears. To make that concrete, the European Food Authority’s operations and mission must cover real detailed knowledge of all the farms scattered across the European Union. Hence a close and positive link with appropriate structures inside the countries of the Union seems essential and fundamental. Furthermore, it is becoming hard to believe that animal health is in any way remote or separate from public health generally. Animal health is therefore a vital issue, but so are healthy vegetables, genetically modified organisms and, last but not least, labelling. In my opinion, it is precisely through the action of the European Food Authority that the European concept of traceability must become reality, and a thread running through every link in the food chain: production, industrial processing and marketing. If we fail to impose this traceability in the service of the citizen, we will inevitably lose a great opportunity for transparency and political action to demonstrate that we are indeed responsive to the demands of our fellow European citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, 70% of European people do not want to eat GM food, but we are all eating it unwittingly. Magnum ice creams, for example, are made of processed GM soya. Unilever and the governments of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands prefer to leave things as they are. So do the , the right-wing Liberals and David Bowe of the Socialists. However, consumers are entitled to information about whether or not they are eating GM food. and the right-wing Liberals wish to keep the European people in the dark. They have one valid argument, namely that the proposed system could lead to deceit. However, deceit also occurs in the origin of food and the labelling of organic food. The and the right-wing Liberals voted in favour on that occasion. It is quite sickening to think that and right-wing Liberals should want to feed our citizens GM food unwittingly.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this report walks a tightrope between the need to increase production of consumer goods and services and environmental protection requirements. I welcome the Commission’s proposal and the rapporteur’s tough, practical, calm handling of the subject. Each product has a life cycle, which starts when it is made available to the consumer. When the consumer uses it, the product’s environmental sustainability – a rather complex term although now universally understood – immediately becomes part of the equation. The relationship is delicate and it does not end with the use or end, so to speak, of the product’s life. Indeed, the most serious problems often arise when the product ceases to perform its function and needs to be disposed of, pensioned off, in other words eliminated from the world in which it has performed its function. It is at this point that the most critical environmental implications come into play, for not all products can be disposed of using the same technology, nor are they all hazardous to the same degree or all biodegradable to the same degree. That is why the Commission is proposing an initiative which deals with the problem at source: if a product is to be easy to dispose of at the end of its lifecycle, this must be taken into consideration right from the design stage, and this is where the greatest merit of the report lies. Here, then, is the proposal to create incentives to encourage initial research on how to keep manufacturers better informed of the technologies and raw materials available to this end. The proposal does not overlook a factor which could give rise to opposition from manufacturers: cost. The text states in quite practical terms that, in addition to encouraging the provision of aid to producers who will face greater costs if they supply these biodegradable goods, a pricing policy also needs to be established allowing manufacturers to set different prices on the market and, moreover, why not, allowing variable taxation to be introduced as well. In other words, those involved in protecting the environment, who are therefore helping us, deserve some support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, cher Monsieur le Commissaire, the report we are in a quandary about approving contains a genuinely fundamental change to regional policy. Regions with permanent handicaps must be regarded in a new way in aid policy. I believe this fundamental revaluation to be important. There are handicaps that are ongoing. We in sparsely populated Finland are familiar with such disadvantages, and these were also noted in the important accession treaty for Finland, Sweden and Austria. Mountain regions and archipelagos may also be of relevance in this connection, however. At any event, I should like to see islands and archipelagos given special treatment. When Finland became a member of the EU, it was difficult for us to maintain important aid arrangements. For example, certain general forms of transport aid were examined extremely critically by the Commission. It is not large amounts of aid we are requesting for sparsely populated areas, the archipelago and mountain areas, but such sums may be crucial to it being possible to maintain services. An important part of the policy may also consist of countries being given opportunities to receive certain smaller sums by way of general aid and of companies that maintain services of general interest being required to ensure that such services operate. We also need rules within agricultural policy enabling small-scale agriculture in the archipelago to survive. That is incredibly important for the archipelago as a part of our world heritage and as something that we are trying to administer as well as possible. The European Convention proposes similar changes, something for which we are extremely grateful. Finally, I wish to say that the concept of territorial cohesion was really originated by the CPMR under its then chairman, Stig Östdahl. I am extremely pleased that, today as well, Parliament can contribute to new and important thinking that must be of use in enabling people to live and prosper in all parts of the EU.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the present situation in Iraq and all that has preceded over the last 12 years are not only the result of the world-domination policy of the USA and its closest allies. A great deal of responsibility and complicity also lies with the EU which, despite many proclamations by its members about respect for international law, has legalised the above crimes and is continuing, as today has made clear, to legalise the barbaric occupation of Iraq, hoping to secure a share of the spoils. For the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, this unacceptable situation goes against the feelings of our peoples, as expressed – including in the European Union – in the past and present mass demonstrations. It will only change with the immediate withdrawal of the occupying armies, so that the Iraqi people can take their fate in their own hands, and on payment by the invaders of the compensation needed in order to reconstruct Iraq. This should have been the stand of the ΕU if it wanted to respect international law instead of helping to flout it. Everything else is a ‘pretext for evil’. Any attempt to continue to use the UN to get the USA ‘out of a fix’ and to continue the occupation is bound to fail. It is certain that the resistance of the Iraqi people against the conquerors, under any guise, will continue with increasing international solidarity.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, yet again we see just what can be done with a common organisation of the market. My congratulations to the rapporteur. If every common organisation of the market were as anti-cyclical as what Mr Garot has proposed, or if all organisations of the market were to work in favour of smaller holdings, as Mr Busk has just said, then holdings in Europe would be structured very differently. The way in which the organisations of the market have worked in the past has served rather than impeded the concentration process. It is interesting to see how the tables have turned. Those who, like me, tend to oppose the organisation of the market in the usual sense, support this proposed amendment. Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, who has fought tooth and nail to prevent other organisations of the market from being withdrawn or to get co-financing for them, now says there should be no co-financing here. If we were to apply the co-financing estimated here, i.e. 50%, to the other organisations of the market, for example in sugar, where the PPE is vehemently opposed to any change, that would instantly free up huge resources. Mr Busk is worried that the WTO would be unable to accept this, but he takes a quite different view when it comes to the organisation of the market in sugar which, if you please, we must defend against the WTO. This is a model just like the American model. We are introducing an insurance system and can easily demonstrate that social aspects play a part. I really do think that what the rapporteur has done here is a brilliant achievement; it shows just what you can do with administration when you set your sights on a specific objective and the objective is clearly specified here. Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, this objective does not suit you. Then you should say so and we can argue it out. This objective suits me fine and, as I say, if we had applied it in other organisations of the market, we would have a very different structure today. As for co-financing and European contributions: the Commission has suggested adding an insurance system to the current organisation of the market, but only using money from the holdings themselves. I mean, what sort of a proposal is that? It is certainly no good to us. That leaves the other system and that is no good either because it fostered concentration. If we are going to do anything, then it must be as Mr Garot has proposed. He has turned the Commission's pathetic proposal into a reasonable, anti-cyclical, structure-securing proposal, which is why our group will vote in favour of this proposal and I trust that it will secure a majority tomorrow. I am just curious, Mr Garot, to see what the decision-makers in the Council will make of it. I personally do not think that it stands a chance. It is because its objective is designed as I have just described that it will most probably be swept straight off the table, unless the French presidency has something up its sleeve which it can use as a sweetener. And after that, it will probably be a first class funeral, but at least it will have been interesting! (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I congratulate the Commission on its firm position; it has our full support. Mr Haarder, it is true that nothing is to be gained from regrets, but neither is anything to be gained from avoiding consideration of problems and concerns. The good news is that 76 States have ratified the Statute, but the bad news is this intolerable and intolerant attitude of the United States to the international system of justice which is aimed at putting an end to impunity. President Bush has waged a campaign of harassment against the Court and against the countries which have signed or ratified its statute, which is completely unacceptable. Only arrogance, ignorance and pride – the three things together – can explain a reaction like the one which has led the two Houses to approve the law we are talking about. It is outrageous. At least they have said that they will not invade the Netherlands. The Union, Parliament and all the European institutions must state as firmly as possible that we will not tolerate such arbitrary behaviour; not the invasion, but the arbitrary nature of the law itself. We must demand that the members of the United Nations Security Council defend the integrity of the new Court and we must prevent the United States from using its capacity for manoeuvre in the Security Council to undermine a text which they never liked, incorporating blanket protection for United States troops and civilian staff. The Statute of Rome is based on the principle of complementarity and offers every safeguard against the inappropriate use of the Court. I am sure that when it comes into operation some people will be reassured. We must urge the sensible members – as Commissioner Byrne called them – of the United States Congress and Senate to prevent the said law from entering into force. If they are not going to ratify the Statute, at least they should refrain from adopting measures to disturb or hinder its operation. The prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, Benjamin B. Ferencz, said that there can be no peace without justice, no justice without law, and no meaningful law without courts to decide what is fair and legitimate in any particular circumstance. Millions of citizens the world over believe that this International Criminal Court responds to that aspiration. Let us not allow anybody to ruin it, not even the United States.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, like everyone else, I too can endorse the package that has been assembled as a compromise. I thank the rapporteur for the work he has done on this. The process for reaching a compromise has been very useful and speedy. However, like so many others, I endorse it with some reservations. Over the last few years we have seen, at least in Western Europe, the levels of phosphate in drinking water fall by between 50% and 80%. It has dropped steadily since the 1980s. One of the biggest reasons for that has been the control of detergents. Now we are opting for even tougher laws, I hope. We are going to see them applied over a wider area, from Limerick – which Mrs Doyle knows very well – to new places such as Latvia, Nicosia and other parts of Central and Eastern Europe. We can expect that all the rivers that drain into the Baltic and the North Sea will become cleaner. There will be far fewer bubbles in the rivers of Europe than Europeans have in their baths. These new measures, in terms of labelling of detergents and ensuring that they break down into safe components when they are discharged in the water, are not quite enough. This issue could quite simply be resolved and in many ways improved by the removal of phosphates from our laundry wash. This is something that we have not managed to do in this proposal. I believe that it is something that Parliament would like to see happen and something which we feel the Commission still has to address. Something not mentioned by other colleagues is the continued use of animal tests to assess detergents. The practice cannot be accepted for much longer. The Commission must set out a clear timescale for the development of replacement tests. It is long overdue. The Commission appears to have missed its chance yet again. Nevertheless I, like everyone else, will support the compromise tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my reference to Communist dictatorships has clearly triggered feelings of great agitation in an MEP from the extreme left. I should therefore like to say that today’s vote has been very important. The people in his party, the PDS, are clearly determined not to learn anything new for the rest of their lives. I am therefore very pleased that we have adopted this report by a large majority.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what our group now endorses with the utmost modesty is what we could have done months ago if we had listened to the smaller groups, but history is history and the future belongs to us all, and so we believe it to be a very good thing that we have ended up in our present situation. One thing that this means is that we want to adopt a basic resolution to the effect that the same provisions apply to all Members of this House, since we all do the same work. At the same time, though, we will, by adopting this, be taking a decision to put an end to the rules on billing for travelling expenses, which are far from transparent and, in my – our – view, quite simply not right and proper. This is something we must always make clear. By adopting the single statute, we are also voting to do away with reimbursements of travel costs that are utterly absurd. It is important that this should become a matter of public knowledge. Secondly, we are also making it clear that we are intelligent enough to make transitional arrangements possible, so that the enlargement countries will indeed have time to join in this joint arrangement, for it would be absurd if someone, on becoming a Member of the European Parliament, were, overnight, to start earning more than the Prime Minister of a country. This is about opting in rather than opting out, for the same Statute will apply to us all. Precisely when these states’ MEPs join in, will have to be laid down by the Council in the form of intelligent rules – in other words, by an opting-in arrangement. When one is in place, then the future of our statutes will be guaranteed. A number of Members of this House are somewhat outraged at our having stipulated that our entitlement to a pension will begin at the end of our sixty-third year of age. I would have thought that sixty-five would be right, for we should demand of ourselves what we demand, at the present time, of society as a whole, without getting special treatment. I am, therefore, firmly opposed to the idea of reducing the figure adopted in this resolution. To do so would send the wrong message to the public. Let me sum up by saying that all is well that ends well. Many thanks to all those who have lent a hand in this. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is going to make a recommendation on the proposal presented to us by the Justice and Home Affairs Council with a view to ensuring public order during meetings. We are going to place value on the need to defend the freedom and fundamental rights of citizens. Since the Treaty of Nice, the European Parliament has had the duty to exercise the right to monitor respect for these rights and that is conferred on us by the Treaty. We must also exercise democratic control of the security measures proposed by the Council, of their proportionality and effectiveness. I am not going to throw accusations at the Italian police, but I believe that to suspend the right to movement of certain citizens while allowing the entry of the people who did what they did in Genoa could be described at the very least as ineffective and inefficient. We are going to do all of this. But I believe that today, Madam President, what we must demand of the European institutions above all is a political reaction to a situation which is not a natural catastrophe, for which a civil protection plan can be presented, as Minister Duquesne appeared to do a few days ago in our committee, but a political phenomenon which we must react to. And that reaction must also, and above all, come from this European Parliament. We in this Parliament have the obligation to create fora for political mediation given a demand which is becoming stronger and stronger, and we must do so above all because the European Union has this democratically elected institution. It is the only international organisation which has one and, given the widespread feeling that there is a lack of opportunity to exercise political demand in an international forum, we must be able to take a step forward and to offer this forum as soon as possible, in the hope that the other institutions will do the same.

Political group: PSE
The failure of the Intergovernmental Conference is to be welcomed. The inability to reach agreement was caused by the enormous contradictions between the largest European powers and their divergent interests. The uncompromising positions of France and Germany were unacceptable to Spain and Poland, who would have lost voting rights vis-à-vis Nice. It is obvious, however, that they had the more or less open support of other countries. Although the interests of neoliberal capitalism unite the right and social democrats in Europe, the interests of individual nations, international alliances and of various economic groups do not match Franco-German interests. One example is how the Bush Administration has shared out the contracts amongst its friends, allowing US and European companies to work in Iraq. Not everyone gets a fair share of the plunder. We knew that we were at a particularly critical time for European integration, because of the increasingly centralised decision-making, the more aggressive form of capitalism, and the increasingly less democratic and dangerously militaristic approach. We know that the failure of the Brussels Summit has not solved the problems, but it has not made them any worse. This gives new hope for the battle that we must continue to fight in order to achieve a Europe of greater social justice, development, economic and social cohesion and of peace and cooperation with the peoples of the entire world.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the need for a binding charter is more a political than a legal issue, but this does not detract from its significance. Fundamental rights are of secondary importance in treaties these days. If they are included at all, this is done so in a completely chaotic format. This is unacceptable, certainly if Europe professes to be a Community of values. Therefore the charter must guarantee the citizen protection against the breaches of increasingly widening supra-national legislation. The ECHR should apply as a minimum standard with specific European Union rights added to it. Needless to say, we need to do everything possible to leave national constitutions intact as much as possible but it cannot be ruled out that it will affect these constitutions. After all, the charter must be able to form the basis for new fundamental rights if so necessitated by social developments. Finally, Madam President, it is essential for the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, for Strasbourg must become stronger, not weaker.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the only thing I can say in under a minute is that I am thoroughly in favour of the International Criminal Court, but I shall say one more thing. The International Criminal Court will act as a brake on dictatorships and a shield against injustice. It is well known that impunity is a breeding ground for dictatorships and criminals. The International Criminal Court responds to a demand from millions of citizens all over the world, who see the impunity of crimes as a violation of their most fundamental rights. The International Criminal Court is, lastly, an essential instrument against impunity, which is encouraged by the immunity demanded by the United States. We cannot, nor do we wish to, yield to pressure from the United States. Tomorrow, the European Parliament will show by means of its resolution that we are jointly responsible for this International Criminal Court and that we are aware that, in the field of human rights, it is impossible to be neutral.

Political group: PSE