GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I oppose Mrs Torres Marques' call for harmonisation of VAT, but what I would really like to address is the García-Margallo report on e-commerce. While I applaud Mr García-Margallo's heroic efforts on aircraft fuel, I am afraid I cannot agree with his stance on VAT in e-commerce because I think that the Commission's proposal sends out the wrong signal. We should be thinking out ways to encourage e-commerce and not thinking up new ways in which to tax it. The de facto tax-free status of much US e-commerce must have had a tremendous impact in encouraging the new economy and its phenomenal success in the US. This tax is unenforceable, why should we spend the time and the money and the effort on creating a tax that we cannot collect. The very day a respectable dot.com starts levying VAT, a less respectable dot.com will set up selling exactly the same products without VAT and that is where the customers will go. The proposal is arguably inconsistent with the Ottawa Accord because it provides for different rates for on-line and off-line equivalent products such as, for example, newspapers which would enjoy a reduced rate in their off-line physical form. It will be almost impossible for e-businesses to work out the VAT status of their customers and impossible to work out whether their customers are based in the EU, whether they are businesses or not. And as we move ever closer towards electronic money, even the comfort of a credit card billing address will no longer be available to e-businesses as they try to ascertain whether they should charge VAT to a particular customer or not. The amount of revenue about which we are talking is very small at the moment. There is no need to rush into this legislation. We are talking about the future of Europe's economy, the future of its e-economy, let us take the time to get this proposal right. I would call upon the Commission to rethink the proposal and to think of an alternative way. The preferable option by far is to zero rate European e-businesses to put them on the same playing-field as American and other businesses around the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me to start by extending a warm thanks to Mrs Ferreira for the good cooperation. Our examination of this document went exceptionally well. A balanced compromise has been struck with the Council and it is this compromise that will, if all goes well, be adopted tomorrow, for which many thanks. I should like to make three comments with regard to the discussion of what is, in fact, a minor legislative proposal. These comments should also be observed in future. What irritates me is that we in this House are sometimes inclined to twist things that have been scientifically proven, in order to adapt them to political statements or political sentiments. This is what Parliament does, and it annoys me. However – and I am also addressing this to the Commissioner, for I have also had a run-in about this with your officials – the Commission does not get off completely scot-free on this score either. They resembled political weather vanes to some extent. In my opinion, we should involve ourselves with matters that have been passed on to us by independent science, and not what we find politically agreeable. So much for my first comment. The second may equally come across as a little abrasive and is addressed to the German and Austrian bakers and the Italian pastry cooks. Because of them, the discussion was very gruelling, because they thought that we would overlook their products. Last Thursday, I rang them up and asked them whether they had read the original Commission document. Had they read it, they would have seen that a separate category had already been inserted for energy-reduced products. They made our lives very difficult on that score. A lot of discussion eventually turned out not to be necessary. Finally, I should like to make a comment with regard to Mr Lannoye’s Amendment No 4. In this amendment, a request is made, among others, for a report about the re-evaluation of the licence for aspartame. This strikes me as entirely superfluous, because everything on this subject is sufficiently dealt with in compromise Amendment No 2. Moreover, as the Commissioner mentioned again a moment ago, this sweetener was evaluated extensively in December. This therefore means that we should adhere to these results. I fail to understand why Parliament then comes trotting along with the safety issue of another sweetener, stevia – which the Commissioner also touched on a moment ago – of which scientific evidence proves the contrary of what is claimed in the amendment. On that score too, I urge you to be led by independent scientific research in future and be less swayed by the political issues of the day, because that way, I think we will arrive at the best legislation. My thanks, once again, to the rapporteur.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Randzio-Plath’s report is, bar one paragraph, a balanced report. The Paragraph in question is the ninth. In our opinion, it compromises the Bank’s independence. The Bank’s task is to monitor price stability in the medium term, not overnight. We want an independent Bank. It is therefore inappropriate for Parliament to prescribe the Bank’s monetary policy. This is an essential point, in our view. Without this adaptation, we will be voting against the report, despite the fact that we give our wholehearted support to the rest of the report. Looking back to the year the report was drawn up and – inevitably – this year to some extent, we still have a wish list with regard to the bank’s communication policy. There is room for improvement in its communication with the financial markets and society. Mr Duisenberg, I asked you at your hearing whether you are able to stay on. You then replied in the affirmative, yet your stepping down is well documented in the press, as if it were a fait accompli after all. There is a desperate lack of good candidates. You have gained a great deal of experience. I would ask you once again: are you able to stay on to complete your term in office? Concerning the conversion to the euro, you know my position. Finally, I should like to comment on cross-border payments. Banks and companies will all earn back the costs incurred during the currency conversion, or they will receive compensation. People in Europe will surely not be the only ones footing the bill and experiencing the disadvantages without gaining any benefits. Mr Duisenberg, I insist that both the Bank and the European Commission assume their responsibilities, assigned in the Treaty, and ensure that cross-border payments which, after all, are no longer cross-border in a European home market, will, on 1 January 2002 cost about the same as remittances at home. You are undoubtedly aware that they have not become cheaper of late, but have become more expensive, by half a euro on average! I should like to inform the Directorate-General Competition of the fact that Parliament will resist a fixed fee of EUR 3 for receiving banks. That would mean that, in some countries, the price would, in fact, increase rather than decrease, and that would be unacceptable!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, referring to the Mediterranean and the Middle East, the Council has just indicated – and I quote – ‘the Union’s willingness to work with the United States for the purposes of cooperation in the region’. It would be no bad thing, in my view, if Washington did the same and expressed its fervent desire to cooperate with the Union. I believe that this would involve the following: a sensitive, rather than blunt and brutal, drawing up and presentation of its proposed plan for the democratisation of the Middle East. It would also involve objectives in line with reality and common sense, bearing in mind, in my opinion, that excessive ambitions, since we are talking about an area from Morocco to Pakistan, may lead to looking foolish, firstly, and then failure. And, above all, I believe the United States should accept that it is impossible to confront such a vast enterprise, without treating the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict as a priority and prior objective. Israel rejected the Saudi peace proposal, ratified in Beirut by the plenum of the Arab League, and has blocked – and let there be no mistake, it has blocked – the road map and decided to continue along its own unilateral course, which includes extra-judicial assassinations. In my opinion – I would insist – these circumstances, together with the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, have led to the suspension of the new Arab Summit, scheduled for yesterday in Tunisia, and I believe that no possible initiative for a so-called ‘Greater Middle East’ can succeed in any way in this context. We simply have to look at what King Abdullah of Jordan, who we all know to be a clearly moderate leader, said the day before yesterday – and I quote, ‘the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, a week before the Arab League Summit, demonstrates that the Israelis wanted the meeting to fail and for the Arabs not to be able to relaunch their dialogue initiative, because Israel does not want peace’. If a moderate leader says what I have just quoted, the Union must take note of what this implies and take action as a consequence. I will end, Mr President, by saying to Mr Laschet, who has just spoken – although I regret that he is not here – that I agree with him when he says that we must talk less about the extra-judicial assassinations violating international law, because we all condemn them. The problem is that these assassinations take place, we all condemn them, but none of us act to put an end to them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted against Amendment No 5 to the Lannoye report because of assurances given by the Commission that it was not factually correct and that it had not asked developing countries for binding commitments in relation to privatising their water industry. Developing countries should be free – as we are – to choose whether or not they have privatised or public utilities to provide their water services. I hope the Commission is making sure that remains the case and is not asking for such binding commitments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is indeed a fine thing to read out allegories and then say that the report is too complicated, moreover referring, as Mr Rack did, to the fact that one has seen the amendments. Of course, details are deceptive – as you, being an outstanding representative of the legal profession, will be well aware. It was in precisely such a decisive situation as this in which we found ourselves. Let us move more towards clarity, or towards what one might term the absence of intellectual doubt. Absurd though it might sound, I was wholeheartedly on Mrs Theato's side, and said that it really should be worked out with absolute clarity and utterly unambiguously, and that the third variant was to be left open. But that, Mr Rack, would have meant that the amendments would have been far more extensive, far more complex and much harder to understand. Hearing what we have heard from the Netherlands, and other positions, makes it possible, however, to live with a fellow-countryman saying that sort of thing. Please allow me to enlarge on two points, those made by Mrs Theato and by Commissioner Schreyer. Both refer to legal bases and to the Legal Service, both of which are sources of doubt. Of course we had to give ourselves safeguards on that, in order to have any chance of reaching a compromise, as we eventually did when we negotiated one with Mr Bourlanges and the Liberals' Mr Duff. One legal opinion is now being pitted against another, and that is something we will have to live with. I do think though that, as a whole, what we have worked out reflects this House's thinking, and it goes without saying, Mrs Theato, that I respect your attitude. I only hope there will not be too many who think as you do, as otherwise we will be back to the beginning. Those who want everything sorted out in the Convention will perhaps be happy with that. There is no more simple way, though, for us to put this together. We have to make a political statement – that is our task as MEPs, but the Rules of Procedure are not designed for that purpose. With that in mind, then, thank you again for your cooperation and support.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I think this debate shows the diversity of this Europe of ours, which is one of its strengths. It will certainly take us several years to take the diversity in our enlarged European and develop from it the common political approach we once had. I want to make it clear that we must take the time to do so. If we are to be able to ensure Europe’s long-term effectiveness, it is certain that all our institutions will have to undergo a period of consolidation. There is a whole range of issues to be discussed. Where Europe was already effective, it must of course remain so, in order that we may be successful in facing the challenge of globalisation and actively work on economic cooperation and in establishing a common framework. We must, though, ensure that Europe becomes effective where it has not been before. This is true also of foreign and security policy, where Europe still has much to do over the coming years. I hope that we will, together, succeed in this. We will then have to give very serious attention to the question of what, in this European Union of ours, holds us together. Is it no more than a free trade area? Is it only the common currency and common market? For me, that would be too little. Europe is founded upon a shared history and culture, upon values that bind us, and the Member States – now numbering 25 – together. It follows that, rather than just talking about cooperation with our neighbours, we must come up with new approaches in order to actually do so where such close cooperation is desirable. Where the European Union is concerned, there are only two options: being a full member or not being a member at all. That is true when it comes to our new neighbours in the East, it also – of course – applies to Turkey, and it is the case with regard to other areas in our neighbourhood, like – if I may make this clear for once – the whole of the Mediterranean. That is the challenge we have to set ourselves. Where there are new challenges, let us find new responses to them, and let us consolidate what we have achieved in such a way that we may start the twenty-first century well. IN THE CHAIR: MRS CERSCHIÖLDVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the will be rejecting this Directive, as it is high time we created a social Europe as well as an economic and financial Europe. We must call a halt to all the practices that result in the subordination of social rights, health, safety and wellbeing of workers to the laws of an ill-considered liberalisation. For that reason, the Group says a wholehearted ‘no’ to this Directive on ports. Dockers in Antwerp, Rotterdam, and also Hamburg or Genoa must be given the guarantee that ships will be unloaded in a professional, safe manner throughout the EU under pay conditions that are not pushed down by social dumping. Since there is to be no compulsory system of authorisations, the balance is abundantly clear. Parliament’s requests at second reading were not met. Hence, the European Parliament must now also reject the Directive in its entirety.

Political group: Verts-ALE
All people are equal, but there are always people who have an interest in denying this. This leads to slavery, racism, colonial wars, child labour, subsistence wages for workers, underpayment for raw materials and the withholding of equal rights for women. In order to maintain their position, some privileged parties draw on quotes from the Bible or the Koran which are supposed to justify their misconduct. Only in the past few centuries have women in different European countries acquired the same rights as men, such as the right to vote, the right to work, rights to equal remuneration, access to managerial roles, the right to dissolve a failed marriage and equal rights of inheritance. There is still a rearguard of men who are opposed to this. New to us is the increase – through immigration – of the number of men originating from cultures who oppose gender equality. Some of them keep their daughters at home, marry them off and penalise them for looking for contact with boys independently. I fully endorse the proposal by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities not to use family law from the countries of origin as a basis, not to support the States that discriminate against women and also to bring women who are persecuted on grounds of gender under the asylum law.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the least we can say is that the vote on this proposal for a regulation to liberalise sales promotions is taking place prematurely. Once again, the Commission has put the cart before the horse without waiting for the European Parliament’s point of view. The Commission has already favoured the open option in a Green Paper on consumer protection, which will not be examined by the House until several weeks’ time. Therefore, in addition to the slightly incoherent character of the approach taken, one cannot fail to condemn the lack of attention paid to Parliament’s point of view, which has been reduced to a mere rubber-stamping of the policies that have been predetermined by the Commission. The choice of legal instrument that makes up the regulation plays a significant part in this. A framework directive leaving a margin of flexibility for Member States could have been better adapted, but it would certainly have sparked off debates at national level once again, debates that had been concluded by the choice of regulation, which is something that the Commission did not desire. I would particularly like to emphasise the issue of mutual recognition, a principle recommended by the Commission to improve the way the internal market works. The practical difficulties posed by applying this principle should be highlighted. The consumer has no knowledge whatsoever of foreign law, just as a judge in a national court has difficulty when it comes to applying the legal rules of one country other than his own. Secondly, there is a risk that mutual recognition will lead to deregulation that is harmful to both economic operators as well as consumers. Operators that are put at a disadvantage by this principle will evidently be tempted to put pressure upon their government to align their national legislation with legislation that is more liberal. This will therefore lead to a downward alignment of consumer policy throughout the European Union. That is why I proposed replacing this principle, which, incidentally, has been worded in an extremely vague manner in the proposal for a regulation, with a formula which is, in fact, that used in the established case law of the European Court of Justice. As for the rest, I believe that the text, as it appears following the votes in the relevant committees, still contains the vital part of what the Member States consider necessary for the protection of their consumers. Nevertheless, the debate on a genuine European consumer policy has not been held and we certainly hope to hold this debate in the near future, when the Green Paper is presented to the House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I extend our deepest sympathy to all of those who were affected by the storms. Sometimes within the Community we do not actually have an awareness of what is happening in other countries. We had very little coverage in Ireland of the tanker that sank. I was asked to highlight the result of the storms in Ireland. We had high winds and unprecedented, prolonged rainfall which, adding to existing difficulties, resulted in thousands of acres being submerged, sometimes, in up to 15 feet of water. We experienced the human misery of flooded homes and farms, no sanitation, no drinking water and the environmental disasters of E.coli-infected water. I talked with farmers whose ewes were aborting their lambs due to drinking the infected water. Natural habitats were destroyed. So I ask that Ireland be remembered in this particular case. I thank the Commissioner and support him very much in his European protection force.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I think that everyone will agree that there is a need for a serious debate within the European Union, but also between the European Union and the United States, about the role of the security policy in transatlantic relations. However, for that to happen, a better foundation is required at this side of the ocean. Above all, we need to try to establish what we ourselves want and not get bogged down so much by what we do not want the Americans to do. I think that this will be a very decisive factor indeed in future. If we in the European Union want to leave our own mark on this discussion, we will once again need to define together what is essential to us. I hope that the strategy that Mr Solana will shortly be tabling will make a significant contribution to this. The European Union itself must be able, and have the courage, to take more responsibility. This can be done most effectively by continuing to build on our own defence identity in a dynamic manner, but also by carrying out security tasks independently, in – for example – Macedonia, and soon in Africa too. We must learn to make more efficient use of our defence capabilities, but not avoid a possible discussion about higher defence outgoings. The EU must be committed to a wide range of security, conflict prevention being its key priority. Experience in this field and the instruments that the European Union has at its disposal must be better coordinated and used more effectively. Involvement in multilateral frameworks, such as the United Nations, forms part of this. Security is sustainable only if it is founded on international cooperation. This is the core message, I think, to the Americans, who go all out for their country's military power. NATO can play a bridging role, but only if the opinion which many Europeans have about security is done justice. We want political equality in transatlantic relations, but there is little point in asking for it if we remain divided ourselves.

Political group: PSE