GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have picked the right moment to discuss enlargement. The fact that there has been a reunited Germany in the European Union for ten years now, bears witness to the solidarity between us. Other countries should now be given the chance to share in this, even though enlargement is not just about solidarity. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism incorporated its position on the Rack report into the Brok report. As a Social Democrat, there are three points I would like to highlight. Firstly, we need a more ambitious transport infrastructure programme for the candidate countries. That is why the Financial Perspective does not appear to us to go far enough, because there is a huge disparity between the diagnosed infrastructure requirements and the financing instruments made available by the Union, together with the candidate countries’ own means, and it will only be possible to implement public private partnership financing models to a limited extent. However, it is politically unacceptable for there to be development periods in excess of 50 years. Secondly, the transeuropean corridors are defined intermodally. We should make a virtue out of something that was born of necessity; i.e. there was a need to localise major trends in goods and passenger movements. In other words, we should keep the integration of modes of transport in mind right from the start. In addition the traditionally robust sector of goods transport by rail should receive the most support. In this way, we might avoid having to implement as many regeneration measures at a later stage, as we are having to do in our own countries now. Thirdly, we want transitional periods for goods transport by road, which will enable there to be a gradual opening up. They could even start in the pre-accession period. It is in the interests of both sides to achieve economic and social balance during integration of the transport markets, because we are already waiting with bated breath as to the consequences of distorted competition on our roads.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, a great deal has been said in today’s discussion. In my view, the most important points to be borne in mind are two figures, which are really quite shocking. The first is that in 1970, the railways had a 20% share of the freight market, whereas today they have just 8.5%. The second figure concerns the average hourly speed of railways in Europe, which is 16 kilometres per hour. And all this in the year 2000! Evidently, we need an immediate political response from the 15 Member States of the European Union. Before such a response can be given, we first need to understand the problem and we need the corresponding political will. In my view, and of course this is the view of all those who have spoken today, we need to take steps as regards network compatibility and interoperability, because we have different technical specifications, different standards and different management systems. And of course, we all endorse the report by Mr Savary, whom I would once again like to commend on his work. However, it is not enough for us just to forge ahead with interoperability. We need to consider the entire railway liberalisation package and combine this with interoperability. In this context, I would like to say that the Helsinki Council resolutions may well be satisfactory, but they are inadequate. If we want to make headway, then we need to adopt the opinion expressed by the European Parliament at first reading, because it deals more fully with the problem which, as is already quite clear I think, is a particularly acute problem. We should all realise that a common market without a unified transport network is simply will-o’-the wisp. So if we want to examine the problem in its entirety, we need to have, and to provide, the necessary responses. I would like to add two separate issues concerning my country, Greece, since my capacity as chairman of the Transport Committee does not, I imagine, deny me the right to raise problems of this kind. The first problem is that Greece has no main cross-border rail links, especially with other Member States. On the contrary, it has important cross-border rail links with third, non-EU countries, which are not bound by Community legislation and, consequently, employ their own national standards and systems and will no doubt continue to do so in the shorter or longer term. This is certainly an issue which merits special mention and regulation so that the European harmonisation we are working for does not prove to be detrimental to the cross-border rail networks of countries such as Greece. Another issue I would like to touch upon is that special provision should be made for peculiarities and differences caused by the geographical location and topography of various Member States such as Greece, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, etc., whose remote or island nature causes particular problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, environmental protection is a prestigious field of politics, and rightly so. However, it is precisely the subject of renewable energy sources that must be freed from the burden of ideology and wishful thinking, as well as from the material misuse of energy sources themselves. The present report on the subject of renewable energy sources does precisely the opposite, and that is why I have rejected it. What, for example, is to be made of the much-touted benefits of wind power, something I consider to be an economic and ecological mistake? No appreciable percentage of an ultramodern industrial state’s energy needs can be met from wind power. We are still talking about mere thousandths of the overall requirement. Last year in Germany, two billion kilowatt hours were generated through wind power. That is just 0.8% of the total requirement of 2,500 billion kilowatts, and even that has cost the taxpayer DM 3 billion in grants. Clearly, then, the future does not lie down this particular road, and we should therefore turn back from this economic and ecological blind alley and find ourselves a new direction.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I appreciate very much that the Commissioner is tiptoeing through a minefield, walking on egg shells and is certainly trying to do her best to see that we rescue something from the first-class programmes we have organised over many years. We all know in this Chamber and in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that the work of the European Union must be carried out not only inside the institutions but also by people outside. Fortunately, there are many worthy, hardworking organisations doing a great deal to promote European Union and cooperation. In particular, the European Councils, the European Youth Orchestra, the European Youth Parliament and the Model Youth Parliament. These organisations have been backed and supported by the European Union and the Parliament over many years by grants voted by Parliament. It just seems incredible that in the year of enlargement and of the adoption of a new Constitution – not to mention the European elections – we should even be thinking about reducing or dropping funding for these emblematic institutions. I would say to Mrs Dührkhop that we can always find ways of spending money on bureaucracies, jurors, and administrative procedures. We need to find a way of getting the money to the people who are actually going to do some good with it. To organise an orchestra which draws its players from the top conservatories across Europe requires a great deal of organisation and forward planning. How can you book concert halls if you do not know that you are going to have the money? Some of these procedures are simply going to cancel that effort altogether. If the European Union cannot organise itself to give assistance, or simply will not, why should any other organisation be thinking of doing so? As for the policy of digressivity, I normally agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, but digressivity simply shows the lack of vision of the people who dreamt up that policy - a total lack of vision, in stark contrast to the vision of the founding fathers of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the opinion expressed by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on the European Constitution and the next Intergovernmental Conference takes a very positive view of the contributions made by the Convention in the field of its competences, and it has expressed this in a document approved virtually unanimously by its members. The Convention has certainly done good work and it must be congratulated on it. I would like to highlight three points, two positive and one not quite so positive. On the one hand, the consolidation, as an exclusive competence of the Union, of the common trade policy, which represents a step forward, and which, it must be said, will increase the participation of the European Parliament’s work in this field. Secondly, by consolidating the concept of the European Research Area, we will be able to tackle the deficiencies we Europeans have in this field. Perhaps our only complaint is the fact that the Convention has not decided to integrate the Euratom Treaty into the text of the Constitution, which means that, in this field, there will continue to be an intergovernmental approach, with all the problems that causes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, first let me very firmly reject Mrs Schroedter’s across-the-board criticism of the TENs. In fact she has insulted us as well, for Parliament and the Council adopted the 1996 guideline by codecision on a proposal from the Council. If that was such a terrible thing, the should have opposed it at the time. They did not do so. Let me just mention two projects that have been successful. I think that, from the environmental standpoint, the rail link across the Øresund was precisely the right thing to do. We want railways and we want links with remote regions. The new Anglo-Irish rail links are of great benefit to the environment and the region. The are quite simply wrong to criticise the TENs as benefiting only the central and most densely populated states. Secondly, I agree with Mr Ebner and others that, as far as the Brenner base-level tunnel is concerned, we have to think up some new ideas. Our committee proposes a four-sided agreement between the three states concerned and the Union. The Brenner base-level tunnel is an unusually large-scale project, and also a project with an unusually significant impact on the environment, for the Alps cannot be compared with the lowlands of the Netherlands or Friesland in Germany. The environmental situation in the Alps is particularly problematic. Quite simply, the way the noise and the stench of cars remains trapped in the valleys is quite different from conditions on flat ground. Something therefore needs to be done in this regard. Above all, we must persuade governments not to shift the blame onto each other. The Italians say they will start building when the Austrians build. The Germans say they will begin building once the Austrians are building. The Austrians say they will start to build once the Germans and the Italians begin. So we need clear yardsticks and data on who pays what and when, and the Community must make a serious effort to get this whole project going. Let me make two final comments. Madam Vice-President of the Commission. Take your time with the revision of the trans-European networks! First, you should take another look at all the projects in the light of today’s debate. We do not want more show projects, 14 or 15 show projects, with no guaranteed financing. In this revision, we should identify measures as priorities only if we are certain they can be financed over a period of 10-15 years. For the citizens will lose confidence in us if we declare certain projects to be priorities and then do not execute them. We must remind the Member States that they have committed themselves to guaranteeing the financing, committed themselves to executing the plan. Then we really must take them at their word and say: we will only list specific projects if they really are ready to be executed and financed. Take your time and reopen these difficult discussions with the Member States so that you, as the Commission, do not propose projects in which we make fools of ourselves in front of the citizens, but projects that are feasible!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, I would like to thank you for your detailed reply. I note – if I understood you correctly – that the Commission will, in its proposal for a directive, consider all of the points and demands I made in my question – with the exception of the area of collateral, where the process for forming an opinion has not yet been concluded. I would like to ask you, therefore, what consequences will result from postponing the timetable for the Basel Committee to make a decision? You say that you will submit your draft directive immediately afterwards; in that case, it is likely to be autumn 2004 and that leaves a relatively tight timeframe for debates in Parliament and with the Council and a very tight timeframe for a preparatory phase for businesses before it enters into force at the end of 2006. What are the consequences of the new agreement in the Basel Committee and the fact that the timetable has been put back by almost a year because of the Committee’s hesitancy?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, who has included several of the paragraphs approved by the Committee on Petitions in his report, relating to the role of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, full respect for the Geneva Convention, special attention for minors travelling alone and women, special training for staff who are in contact with asylum seekers and the importance of the contribution of regional and local bodies, non-governmental organisations and the United Nations High Commission. Nevertheless, Mr President, there are some remaining concerns which we express in the explanatory statement, such as the excessive exploitation of the sense of insecurity in order to adopt restrictive or repressive measures, not only in relation to asylum seekers, but also towards immigrants. Therefore, the draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Petitions – as approved by the Committee – supports the implementation of the Community action programme against discrimination, racism and xenophobia. Another concern is that the Council may adopt more restrictive national positions in relation to the right to asylum. In Seville, we saw the differences between the various States with regard to this issue. Mr President, the Committee on Petitions receives petitions relating to the refusal of asylum. Some are more important and more justified than others, it is true. Last week we received one which is unusual, from an American citizen requesting asylum in Sweden, because he believes he is being persecuted in the United States and that he is being excessively pressurised. Sweden refused him that asylum request and he contacted the Committee on Petitions. This request, which is unusual, demonstrates the complexity of the problem and the need to find a balance, as the Commissioner said, between the right to asylum and the citizens feeling secure.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we, for our part, welcome the enlargement of Europe and will participate in the discussion of how to prepare for it. The Scottish National Party, which I represent, is committed in its manifesto and its general policy to the idea of Europe as a confederation of peoples, countries and regions, not as a sovereign federal union in its own right. That is something which the parties of have in common and our votes will be cast in that light. I want to draw attention particularly to Amendment No 138, in its interaction with paragraph 32 of the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report. Regarding its proposal for all-Europe lists of candidates, we in Scotland – a small nation within a large Member State – are seriously concerned about the practical disappearance of Scotland as a distinct entity within the Union This would also apply to Euskadi, Flanders, Galicia, Andalusia and Wales. The reduction in Members of the European Parliament that we would face, coupled with the arrival of new Member States which are smaller in population than Scotland or Wales and which would be fully represented in all the institutions of the Union, will certainly increase the pressure for and our people’s commitment to the idea of our own independence in this great European confederation. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
The problem of landmines is not only a problem for States. Long after peace has been concluded, and I hope that even in Angola that will one day be the case, there will still be fields that cannot be walked on, because they are full of mines and therefore put innocent people are at risk. In 1997, a treaty was concluded banning landmines. One hundred and forty-nine countries have already signed it. Many countries have ratified it, but 52 have not and they include some of the largest nations. One of the major problems is that not only regular armies lay the mines, but that terrorist and rebel movements also use them. That is why it is necessary that they should be urged to stop using landmines. It is difficult for an official body like ours to involve non-governmental players in the negotiations, but it is good that we as an official body should urge the countries not to stockpile landmines and that we should support the NGOs that are striving to get the terrorist organisations and rebel movements to forsake the use of landmines. I refer in this context to the appeal of Geneva, which we have heard proposed here this week in our own Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I wholeheartedly support Mr Buttiglione’s speech and, on behalf of the Forza Italia delegation of which I am head in the European People’s Party, I cannot forget the suffering of the Italian people in the former Yugoslavia at the end and during the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. A genuine ethnic cleansing operation took place and disputes still remain which have not been resolved. Some Italian citizens are still waiting for their rights to be respected. We are on extremely good terms with Slovenia, but we cannot forget past events or allow them to be forgotten. The Europe which is just emerging, our common home which we are building together, cannot disregard the past. We cannot create a Europe which does not condemn the atrocities perpetrated by Communism and Nazism. Therefore, Madam President, in addition to calling upon you to make authoritative representations to the Slovenian Government, I also invite all the Members of Parliament to sign the declaration calling for the institution of a day dedicated to the Shoah, to the holocaust, to be observed throughout the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the regional fisheries organisations are today without doubt the best, if not the only, guarantee for the management of world fish stocks, and they are likely be even more significant in the future. The rapporteur has understood their importance perfectly and has drawn up an excellent report, which highlights the real weakness of the communication. Very good intentions which can only become reality if there is a genuine political desire. When we think that, of all the coastal countries in the world, very few have the economic, judicial, legislative and political potential that the European Union has, that should tell us how much we should be asking ourselves what our responsibility is. Yet the Community neither gets involved nor takes a lead; the very most it does is react. But it reacts with such paltry means and so little foresight that in the end it is like sending David out against Goliath. Except that in the Bible David won, which is not the case here. I have been an observer in some regional organisations and I can assure you that it is pathetic to see two or three mid-ranking officials, exhausted and hardly getting any sleep, trying to react to problems that could be seen coming months earlier and facing high-powered delegations, which are high-powered either because they are from great powers like the United States or Japan or because they have followed an intelligent policy of forming alliances in advance. As the Directorate-General for Fisheries is currently being restructured and may gain more staff and better resources, I believe we should demand that priority be given to strengthening this area. It would mean, first of all, not having to confine itself to reacting to actions like that of the Galapagos Agreement and its manifest intention of unilaterally extending the jurisdictional waters of four countries in defiance of the basic norms of international maritime law, or against attempts to arbitrarily expel Community fleets, which are among the few that are governed by strict standards and regulations. Similarly, the Commission has the obligation not only to properly represent us in the international maritime sphere but also to take the initiative. It should thus promote the setting-up of new regional organisations, beginning where the Community already has a presence, such as in the western Pacific and south Pacific. In view of the expected restructuring, I should like to ask specifically for a unit to be set up for large migratory species, the need for which has already been noted by the Commission insofar as it has drawn up a number of regulations just for these species, which are the main target for flags of convenience, a pirate scourge that inexplicably is spreading ever more widely. In conclusion, I reiterate my support for the rapporteur’s magnificent report.

Political group: PPE-DE