GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it was to be expected, but it always causes a certain degree of anxiety, mixed with impatience, to see once again that the negotiation of the European budget still leads to the conflict so typical of recent years. This is almost a carbon copy of the procedure for the 2000 budget. Once again, the insufficiency of what was adopted in Berlin, in March 1999, for external policy, rocks the foundations of the Community budget. The Council’s short-sightedness hinders any logical solution. Rather than a budgetary cycle, ladies and gentlemen, it appears that we have a budgetary big wheel. Somehow or other, the Commission has honoured its commitment to propose a multi-annual plan for the Balkans. However, sincerely, I agree to a large extent with the Council’s criticism that the figures do not seem particularly well founded. As the former MEP, Lord Tomlinson, said, there is nothing more expensive than a meal amongst Foreign Affairs Ministers: they are always ready to promise money without considering where it will come from. I truly believe that the proposal is rather inappropriate and has no sense of time. They are proposing to move funds intended for agriculture to foreign policy and these proposals have not even been accepted by the United Kingdom. Just imagine. That is no way to make progress. With regard to Serbia, they propose more than EUR 2 billion over the period. I would like to remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that in order to topple Pinochet, the European Community spent EUR 10 million. Our contribution to the campaign against Pinochet in the referendum was EUR 10 million. We spend EUR 40 million a year on the democratic forces in Serbia and they are asking for two hundred and something more. When Milosevic falls, I will be the first to accept a revision of the financial perspectives. However, meanwhile, let us forget the annual EUR 200 million from now until the end of the period. Let us not push things to the limit. Ladies and Gentlemen, I do not know if the Council is aware of the real situation. If it rules out – as it has ruled out – moving money from category 1A, Agriculture, to category 4, and does not accept any increase in the ceiling of category 4 for foreign policy, and all of this must be done by means of a redistribution of resources, we are simply dealing with a case of a non-revision of the financial perspectives. We are simply dealing with a case of budgetary procedure in the field of non-obligatory expenditure and, therefore, the most that could be said would be that the Council has not complied with Article 20 of the Interinstitutional Agreement.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would urge you to consider the position that now exists in relation to the foot-and-mouth crisis in the United Kingdom. I respect the point you make, that this was discussed by the Conference of Presidents last week and given the situation at that time it was decided not to place it on the agenda this week. Could I just point out the number of outbreaks in the UK yesterday was higher than at any time in the three weeks since the crisis started. The situation is now out of control and even though the British Agriculture Minister is insisting there is no crisis, the whole of the EU views with alarm what is happening in the UK. Ireland has a particular interest, but so do the French, as do all of us in the 15 Member States and beyond. The situation has changed so much since the matter was discussed by the Council of Presidents that I would urge you to find time, perhaps during the discussion of the regulation you have just referred to, for us to have a Commission update this week here in Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
This report contains positive elements which deserve to be supported, such as the proposal to reinforce Community initiatives in support of culture, the concern to promote cultural diversity, reading, publishing and protection of copyright, and support for those SMEs active in the field of culture. It also, however, has negative aspects. Most importantly, it should be said that the report subordinates culture to the market in general, and to the rules of the European Union internal market in particular. It privileges the commercial dimension of culture, and competition in the context of so-called ‘globalisation’. It thus participates in the logic of commercialisation of culture. This report is characterised by various ambiguities, and does not clearly indicate or suggest any actual proposals or measures, such as defending or promoting public national systems to fund and support the production and dissemination of culture, aimed at protecting our cultural heritage and cultural production from subordination to the laws of the market, to the logic of commercial gain and to the promotion of mass- and consumer-orientated cultural models.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am disappointed with that response. The European Parliament held a hearing just a few weeks ago with representatives from the Minister's country as well as from my own. The point was made very strongly there by representatives of the radio industry that digital radio is one sector of media communication that is not developing as quickly and as effectively as it might do, and the feeling was that political backing was lacking. I would like to think that the Council, were they to receive a proposal from the Commission, would behave emphatically in support of digital radio. A problem has also arisen that various elements of the digital radio spectrum are now being allocated across Europe often quite freely, at no charge at all. Yet that same spectrum would, of course, be very profitable if were used for telephone communications. I wonder if can we be assured that the Council of Ministers will look very carefully at this and be sure that it does not pose any threat to the development of digital radio in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union faces a growing problem of illegal immigration. An integrated and global approach must be developed, in order to prevent and eradicate this phenomenon and to combat its underlying causes. The Tampere Council called for a common asylum and immigration policy; at Laeken and Seville the need was confirmed to effectively combat illegal immigration and an initial balance sheet was drawn up of the progress that has been made in this field in the framework of the Thessaloniki decisions, which lay behind this initiative. I wish to congratulate Mr Pirker on the excellent report he has presented to us. I agree with him when he emphasises the need for a universal and coherent approach. There are eight points that I wish to highlight: - firstly, the existence of legal channels of immigration that enable the citizens of third countries to enter the European Union on the basis of each Member State’s capacity to receive people, This will require closer cooperation with the countries of origin; - secondly, integrating legal immigrants who live and work in the European Union by means of a common social integration policy that strikes a balance between the rights and the corresponding obligations of these citizens and the host societies; - thirdly, the joint management of migratory flows, in particular visa policy, because agreement must be reached as swiftly as possible on the necessary legal, technical and financial bases of the visa information system (VIS); - fourthly, improving controls at the external borders, which means creating a European border guard; - fifthly, the much-trumpeted European asylum system; - in sixth place, negotiating readmission agreements, with a common policy for returning persons in an illegal situation, with minimum rules for return procedures and the mutual recognition of these decisions, and with the co-financing of projects for cooperation under a programme of aid for return; - in seventh place, combating trafficking in human beings, calling to account those who profit from this business and providing support for the victims of trafficking. It is worth highlighting the importance of increasing operational support for Europol in preventing and combating this type of trafficking; - my eighth and final point is the fight against illegal immigration, which means investing in information on prospects for legal immigration that provide a genuine alternative.

Political group: PPE-DE
We voted ‘no’ in the final vote on this report, in spite of there being certain parts of it which improved the Commission proposal, including the new chapter on the important socio-economic impact assessments and the somewhat larger reduction in fishing effort with regard to sand eel and whiting. We nonetheless believe, however, particularly against the background of the very necessary programme, recently presented by the Commission, for reforming the common fisheries policy, that, on quite a few points, this report is unfortunate in the way it forestalls the overall view of this reform that is required. On this basis, we think it particularly unfortunate that the report states that the compensation to be paid to those fishermen and ship owners hit by a temporary cessation of activity “shall be fully paid by the EU”. That is inappropriate in the way it sets in stone a certain approach when it comes to structural measures, and we believe that the Commission proposal, which recommends the co-funding of such compensation, is quite clearly to be preferred.

Political group: PSE
Mr McCartin appeared with his last remarks to be accusing honourable Members of this House of misleading the public. I hope that was not true. In case it was, then I suggest that he ought to be supplied with a map of the Scottish fishing areas to see just why it is so important to a lot of places where people can take boats out from.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Jové Peres on his work, on his report and on the common sense that inspired it. Today, Commissioner, in reality, the painful situation that my country, Galicia, is currently experiencing as a result of the Prestige tragedy takes precedence over any other consideration. Contemplating the state of the Galician coast following the disaster, and the Galician people, in their sorrow, anger, bravery and concern, who, despite everything, are looking to the future, seems to me to be the best proof that Galicia, the north-eastern region of the Iberian Peninsula, is heavily dependent on fishing, and not only because 20% of its gross domestic product comes from fisheries and related activities. I would also like to reiterate all the requests made by the rapporteur, Mr Varela. What I have just said relates to Mr Jové Peres’ report because the Galicians, in the face of the Prestige disaster, are working courageously to mitigate the terrible social, fishing, economic and environmental consequences. I believe the three aspects are inextricably linked as parts of a whole. The proposal on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy must be based on and committed to sustainable development and environmental protection. Both ideas are starting points, hinges, upon which the construction of CFP reform rests. Sustainability would clearly be guaranteed if there were no development, but depending on the starting points – which are sometimes deductive and other times not well founded, but which, in all cases, are questioned or questionable – the solutions can vary, and in this, yet again, the work of the rapporteur, Mr Jové Peres, deserves to be praised for not over-emphasising across-the-board aspects, although these were important. In this matter, the recovery we all want and are aiming for cannot rest on a single idea – the reduction, if not the disappearance of the fishing sector – because fishing is carried out by real people, human beings, family men, and for this reason alone we need to seek and find a balance between the consequences of limitation and means of conservation. One example would be the mechanism of temporary cessation of activity, restriction of fishing days, etc. Commissioner, a Galician newspaper this morning contained the following: ‘the European Fisheries Commissioner says that cutting off aid would mitigate job losses. The removal of state aid for the modernisation of boats will be positive, as it will contribute to maintaining jobs on-board boats’. In my opinion, given that the boat is not just the centre of work, but also the professional fisherman’s home, the brave workers fully deserve an improvement in their working and living conditions. Their dignity requires it and society, in particular the fisheries sector, has requested and expects this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, according to its preliminary draft budget, the Commission wants 500 temporary posts to serve the needs of EU enlargement, which would be financed by means of a flexible mechanism. This is the wrong way to provide finance. There is no question here of unforeseen expenditure. Parliament also wishes to prepare for enlargement by employing additional staff. To cover the cost of this the desire has been expressed to resort to the so-called negative priorities, in other words seeking to trim and wind down current activities. Savings would then apply most drastically to activities that maintain Parliament’s pluralistic and diverse nature, and that is why this is the wrong way to provide finance. It is reasonable for both the Commission and Parliament to place on view the administrative expenditure due to enlargement under Section V of the budget. It is reasonable to exceed the upper limit for administrative expenditure recorded in the Interinstitutional Agreement partly because when the agreement was being made there was no provision for the inclusion of ten new Member States and nine new languages. The costs of enlargement must be paid for and they must be shown transparently in the budget.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The basis for prosperity in the EU is competition. And the intention in adopting a new directive on chocolate products is precisely to improve competition in the EU. With regard to food policy and consumer protection, we must be very careful. But this is not a question of health or environmental protection. It is exclusively a question of the extent to which, without any risk to health, we are to permit free competition in the chocolate industry so that all chocolate producers can sell their chocolate in all EU countries and not only in the seven countries which have so far permitted the aforesaid vegetable fats. Seen from the consumers’ point of view, it is exclusively a question of taste. It cannot therefore be right for politicians to decide what consumers should be entitled to choose between. Products should be put on sale, and it should be clear what they contain, but otherwise we must rely upon consumers’ own judgement. We can hardly do otherwise. Consumers should find out for themselves what tastes best. If, today, we are obliged to note considerable opposition to the proposal here in Parliament, this cannot be viewed as anything other than an attempt on the part of certain chocolate manufacturers to curb competition. If one looks at where the opposition is coming from, it is also clear that it crosses the Group divide and comes mainly from those countries which are already using current rules to protect their chocolate industries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I express my thanks to Bruno Trentin for the quality of his work and for being a good listener. In his diagnosis he clearly emphasises that Europe is not cyclically dependent on the United States and that the research and technological-innovation gap between the two sides of the Atlantic is liable to widen, with the Union clearly lagging particularly far behind in terms of public and private investment. But how should we respond? Our Committee wished to adhere to the principle of coordinating national policies, which it sees as one of the mandatory precepts of the Stability Pact. But who can fail to observe the extremely poor results of this coordination? Who can fail to see that the Pact, while providing Member States with a useful discipline as far as public deficits are concerned, does not begin to define the policies that are required if the development targets set in Lisbon are to be met? As for the intensification of fiscal competition, it compels governments to cut public spending, even on essentials. And who can also fail to observe that the Member States will not let the Union acquire budgetary and fiscal instruments that would enable it to support a policy of investment and development? This is why, unlike Mr Radwan and contrary to the letter of the report, I believe we cannot continue to operate within the bounds set by the present treaties. It will be necessary to go beyond the coordination stage and try to extend the powers of the Union. The broad economic policy guidelines and the Stability Pact must be reviewed if we want to adopt a truly cooperative approach, and we must press for the Union to obtain the budgetary and fiscal instruments without which it cannot pursue real economic policies. Accordingly, our Parliament should seize the present opportunity to take a historic initiative by formulating proposals for submission to the Convention on the Future of Europe. It would be a cruel disappointment and, I believe, a political error of the first magnitude if the Convention did not try to strengthen the European Union and its powers in the sphere of economic policy at this precise time when some large question marks hang over the development and cohesion of our Community.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur for his proposals, which are supported by our group as well. In our view, there is a need to put forward ambitious objectives and pragmatic specific measures, with new and innovative approaches and more local and regional initiatives – all of which you have included in your report. For a long time, we have been passing resolutions demanding that the national parliaments be more involved – not only Denmark’s and Scotland’s, but those right across the European Union. However, the fact that the European Employment Policy allows national objectives and decision-making leeway is another indicator of how astute it is. What I would like to tell the honourable lady Member from Sweden is that the German labour market might well be in need of reform, but there is not one Member State of the European Union in which the removal of protection against dismissal has helped to create jobs. I want to say, though, that there are two points on which we are critical of the . One, which has already been referred to, is Amendment No 62. The Commission has proposed the use of immigration policy to govern the way in which the potential labour becoming available through immigration is used. I think there is a need for the to face up to this fact and for this not to be taken, as it were, ad absurdum by means of special bilateral arrangements between the Member States, with conservatives remaining silent in the face of this practice. We cannot support tax cuts across the board, and I find it regrettable that this amendment is being treated as the most important. Europe’s entrepreneurs expect something different: their expectations are for the security that makes it possible to plan for the long term, for qualified workers, the best possible infrastructure, promotion of science and research, the weeding-out of rules and regulations, and investment. There is a need for such measures, and they cannot be brought about by tax cuts across the board.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is a rare occurrence but, this time, I am forced to speak on behalf of my nation. In fact, the entire Italian beef industry is extremely concerned by the proposal, and not just because of the maximum limits it imposes on travelling time. Of even more concern to us is the fact that the proposal stipulates that animals for further fattening, which is a completely natural stage of the livestock rearing process, should be subject to the more restrictive measures laid down for animals for slaughter instead of the less restrictive measures laid down for breeding animals, even though the further fattening stage is a natural continuation of the livestock rearing process lasting a few months. We fully understand the report’s objective, which is to replace the transportation of live animals with that of dead meat as far as possible. However, our situation is quite out of the ordinary, involving 120 thousand farms and a flourishing processing industry with business activities ranging from slaughter to packing, which would be greatly compromised by such a measure. Here are some statistics, Mr President, Commissioner: France has a cattle stock of over 20 million head and an annual slaughter rate of 5 million head; Italy has a cattle stock of 7 million head and an annual slaughter rate of 4.5 million head. Clearly, this consolidated production cycle, which is vital for the economy of our country’s livestock sector, would be completely disrupted by the introduction of a maximum journey time or distance limit. Moreover, there are no scientific grounds for such a limit and it would serve purely exploitative purposes and have consequences which, as I said, would be extremely difficult for the sector as a whole to bear. It can be seen from this that the sole motive behind any proposal to place an absolute limit on travelling time is actually other countries’ desire to strip Italy of a substantial part of its slaughter trade and to take the place of our producers in supplying beef and veal to the Italian market. This is not the kind of Europe we want!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to start by thanking you for the way that, during this initial stage, you take on board all our questions and follow them up with great care. I would therefore like to thank you for your work. As far as the Rotterdam incidents are concerned, I am in complete agreement with Mr Tajani. Indeed, these were serious incidents which we would have not have thought possible, an affront to the freedom of the press as well to disabled people for the journalists were detained for several hours on no grounds at all. In connection with these events, I would like to give you advance notice of our proposal, which we will expand in detail later on, to include a point referring to the said incidents in the topical and urgent questions on hooliganism. This will give Parliament the opportunity to express a considered, responsible opinion on the matter. I therefore call upon the Members to support this point when we vote on the topical and urgent subjects, for this will allow Parliament to express an opinion as it has a duty to do.

Political group: PSE