GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we are faced with the total inability of the Commission and the Council to negotiate on behalf of the citizens. The latest Euro-barometer data shows scepticism is rising, perhaps as a true reflection of this inability to negotiate. In the agreement with Morocco they have had no weight whatsoever. Even the French Presidency told us at the time that it was unable to secure an agreement. We are going to have a major social problem on our hands, and we have no real alternative. Now some of our fishing towns are going to develop their economy partly around and thanks to the drug that Morocco grows and markets and we Europeans consume. To Moroccan blackmail of negotiating with the resources of some fishing grounds that belong to the Sahrawi people, the Commission responds by seeing Community fishermen as real enemies, cutting their quotas and signalling to Morocco that that is the way to go, without proposing an alternative. Can anybody be sure today that all the Community boats that have had anything to do with fishing in Morocco are tied up? Well, then, Morocco-European Union relations must be seriously affected. All the funds poured into this agreement should be used to finance alternatives in the areas affected. Meanwhile, the Commission Presidency is trying to settle a very long-standing problem at the last minute. We are concerned that the solution proposed is just a makeshift solution for the sake of the media and not a real solution to the problem.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to say to Mr Tajani, who has accused my Group of criticising and being against his government and Italy, that only the first part of what he said is true and that the confusion between criticism of the government and criticism of the country, nation or its people is the first step on a very dangerous path, which in Europe we all know very well. (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I join in congratulating all the rapporteurs. It is only right to highlight the efforts that the general rapporteur, Mrs Haug, has made in seeking an intelligent consensus, which I hope will not be frustrated. But I would like to focus my comments on the ECSC operating budget, which needs to be examined in the light of the fact that we are on the threshold of the expiry of the Treaty. Its final amount is modest and correct. Our group relates the strategy for the general budget to the quality of spending and efficient management, and this also extends to the ECSC budget. I share the concerns and opinions that the rapporteur, Mrs Rühle, mentioned this afternoon regarding the sections on research and social measures. But what is also important is to insist that the allocations are used correctly. A sector such as steel, thanks to technological research and development, has ceased to be an industry that only generates basic products and has become one that puts semi-processed products on the market with added value. Therefore, sustaining and increasing research programmes in that sector is a key issue today, with the ECSC instruments, and in the future, when they disappear. On the other hand, it is important for the peace of mind of thousands of workers, and compatible with the overall amount planned, that the level of aid planned for this financial year for the social chapter for coal should be maintained. The ECSC operative budget for 2001 does not move away substantially from the line taken in recent years. It therefore takes on the same faults. You only have to look at the amount entered coming from commitments that have not been implemented. This is not very serious with the expiry of the Treaty very close on the horizon, but it would be worrying if the post-ECSC legal framework maintained the possibility of prolonging such practices. We are therefore paying close attention to the proposal for a decision on the financial consequences of the expiry of the Treaty. The Commission will have to look at a transparent mechanism so that the European financial institutions can, at the correct time, evaluate what is remaining from the ECSC and be protected from any possible failures to pay by debtors and so that, through a system of public competition, maximum profitability can be achieved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today's vote actually shows that important issues are also dealt with on Fridays. This is the last Friday sitting in Strasbourg for the time being, which means that Strasbourg will lose 12 days of parliamentary sittings. I believe that the issues which have been debated at these Friday sittings have definitely been of strategic significance for Europe. I should like to make one further request of the French Presidency: that Mr Moscovici – because he has given really extremely brief and sometimes imprecise answers to questions here – answer these questions fully and in writing for the European Parliament, because for us, good cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament means that we face each other as equals and that each takes the other seriously. That is why I would also be interested to know whether the issue of Friday sittings was discussed at the Nice Summit, that is whether it was of importance or insignificance to the French Presidency. Finally, I should like to extend my warmest thanks to the House, to all of my colleagues, to all of the ushers and also to the President. I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and hope that we will all meet again next year in good health.

Political group: PPE-DE
We have voted against Mr Kirkhope’s report on carriers’ liability and call upon the French Republic to withdraw its initiative regarding penalties for carriers transporting passengers with inadequate travel documentation. The Council’s initiative is another in the series of fragmented proposals aimed only at excluding people from entering the European Union. For us, it is unthinkable that the Member States’ responsibility for checking passports should be transferred to private transport companies. It is unfair that check-in staff at airports and at harbours, air stewardesses or ticket collectors should instead be given the right to decide who should be granted entry to the European Union. That is precisely what the result will be if the rules of the Schengen Convention and Mr Kirkhope’s proposal regarding penalties are put into practice. The right to asylum under the Geneva Convention must be a cornerstone both of Schengen cooperation and of the EU’s common refugee and immigration policy. The severe sanctions proposed by the Council constitute a significant threat to the right of asylum. The many people who at present succeed in fleeing from war and oppression and arriving at the EU’s external borders would never succeed in entering the EU if new or increased penalties were to be imposed upon transporters. Free movement within the European Union must not be implemented at the cost of the EU’s erecting barriers against the surrounding world. Continued cooperation within the Schengen framework and the common immigration and asylum policy must be characterised by the European tradition of a generous refugee policy in which the right to asylum is guaranteed.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, perhaps I can give Mr Fabra Vallés, the President of the Court of Auditors, a tip on how his institution can be better appreciated by the other institutions, for that – as you, Mr Fabra Vallés, said, and as I also believe – is what is lacking at the present time. Perhaps you should make your reports a bit clearer. Perhaps you could just state that the Statement of Assurance is absent or that you do not believe that reforms will be in place by the time promised, or perhaps you could just report that, where agriculture is concerned there has been no preparation for enlargement to speak of. If one can talk in terms of only 2% funds getting to their intended recipients, then this policy has proved to be a non-starter. That is the simple view taken by our fellow-citizens. I cannot see any way of putting a cosmetic gloss on these things. If reform is the issue, then we have our own indicators. I am not talking about the time before 1999, but about the present day, when I say that, when we are told by a Commission that the report will be produced a year later, in contravention of the law it exists to guard and uphold, then something has not happened, that something being a learning process within the Commission. When one has to wait months to get a reply to questions relating what is currently going on in Eurostat – that is, questions relating not to the distant past but to the mistakes being made right now and to the continued waste of taxpayers’ money – then nothing has happened. When we are told that, if we want reforms and proposals for legislation by the end of December, we will get them in January, then, again, someone has failed to learn anything. It is by these criteria that we judge whether a reform has happened and has been successful. As you will by now have gathered, we are highly sceptical.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, although strictly speaking Rule 9 does not provide for this, I would like to declare an interest in relation to the four reports on the Telecom package.

Political group: ELDR
Sustainable development and the environment are just as important as the economy and social performance. The Spring Summit must therefore pay just as much attention to these, and not spend hours on the economy, minutes on social aspects and only seconds on environmental policy. The European Commission should prepare a sustainability report each year, and the joint resolution requests that the European Commission do just that. One example is fuel cell cars: the car of the future. Citizens of the United States and Japan are already driving them: they are already available; but not in Europe. We are lagging behind in this field. The widespread use of fuel cell cars, powered by biomass, will also mean that wars over oil will be a thing of the past. Environment, social aspects and economy are each of equal importance. It is a great shame that by no means all Heads of Government have taken this to heart.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Together with the whole of the Group of the European People’s Party , I have voted against the report, which was nonetheless approved by 269 votes in favour, 225 against and 46 abstentions. We cannot go along with the watered down definition of ‘marriage’ or ‘the family’ that the majority of Parliament supports by wanting the definition also to include partners of the same sex, unmarried cohabiting partners and registered partners, irrespective of sex, in circumstances where, by law or in practice, the country of origin or the recipient country puts such people on an equal footing with married couples. Instead, we fully support the Commission’s proposal, based upon time-honoured definitions of marriage and the family that our western Christian civilisation has used throughout the centuries, such as its definition of a married couple as husband and wife. The conditions governing freedom of movement and residence within the EU for persons without EU citizenship must be clear and simple to apply legally. Today’s adoption of Amendments Nos 14 to 16 (262 votes in favour, 238 against and 30 abstentions) shows that a majority wishes to move in the opposite direction. To attempt, with the smallest possible political majority, to use European regulations on freedom of movement and residence in this way, namely in order to export to other Member States, and indirectly to impose upon them, a view of the family and marriage that is not embraced by these countries’ culture and national legislation, is contrary to the spirit of cooperation in the EU and, in my opinion, deeply objectionable. - Hernández Mollar report (A5-0005/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the southern parts of Russia, the Caucasus and Caspian Sea regions, are caught up in a vicious circle of conflicts that have been going on for a long time. The United States of America is building – has already built – a network of military bases close to Russia’s southern border. With Azerbaijan and Georgia it is constructing an oil pipeline past Russia to Turkey. The oil pipeline that passes through Chechnya has been damaged by the war. I would like to say to you all, and especially the Commissioner, that Russia is now turning its attention to its traffic connections and natural resources in the north. Within a short time it will be constructing its second oil port at the end of the Gulf of Finland. An enormous gas pipeline project from the Arctic Ocean, via the Baltic Sea, to Central Europe is already being planned. At the same time trial shipments of oil are being delivered from the Ob delta area to Murmansk and from there to the world markets. In other words, Russia has effected a strategic change, which is beginning to be seen in the activities we are involved in, although these are Russia’s own solutions. Now it is a question of what the role of the European Union is. As Mr Suominen said, Russia for us is becoming an ever more important partner state, and, as Mr Seppänen said, it is energy that is the crucial issue here. Why is that? Because it is in that area that our dependence on Russia is most clearly visible. This excellent idea and model for a Northern Dimension, underrated and afflicted by confusion as it has been, now needs a centre of focus, and that should be energy. If it is made a priority in the next action plan we can also act in the other areas: environment, culture, education and training, health, the transport situation, and the information society. In this way this whole great idea would gain extra momentum, and not least because the accession of Poland and the Baltic countries to the EU will create more pressure to improve the structure of this Northern Dimension. As Heidi Hautala said, a good example of this in the area of financing is the environmental programme fund. The money therefore exists; now it is a question of action. I want to thank Denmark for having been so active in this area, and I shall put Greece on the same scales that we used to weigh Denmark’s efforts, with the praise that resulted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank my friends and hope that they are listening carefully to my explanation of vote, the contents of which are extremely serious even it may not appear so on the surface. I am very familiar with the problems of Spanish and Portuguese fishermen, problems which are shared by fishermen in Sicily. However, a few days ago, I discovered that a when a Moroccan fish bumped into a Spanish fish in the Mediterranean one day, he remarked (in his own language, of course), “I have heard that Mr Fatuzzo is fighting so that we fish will be able to become pensioners too”. (Laughter) This gives me great pleasure, but I have another desire: I am a Moroccan fish and I would like to be caught by a Moroccan fisherman, not a Spanish fisherman. I have established a trade union. The other fish, the Spanish one, says: 'I would like to be caught by a Moroccan fisherman, not a Spanish one ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Madam President, the design of appliances, IT systems and industrial motors is crucial not only for climate change and security of supply but also for the overall economy in Europe. This offers the single largest potential in respect of climate change, and also the most immediate potential because turnover times for such appliances are sometimes two to three years and at most ten to fifteen years, which is much quicker than for energy infrastructures. It also represents the cheapest potential, because the additional money spent on upgrading a design is more than compensated for by reduced electricity costs during its life cycle. Unfortunately, the European Union is lagging behind other economies, such as Australia, the US and Japan. Even China now performs better on standard-setting than the EU. We are pleased, therefore, that the EU Commission has come forward with this proposal and that Parliament was able to strengthen the proposal. A good eco-design directive is important not only for Europe but also for the world. There will soon be between 500 and 700 million new middle-class citizens in India, China and other such countries, so the single biggest challenge for the world economy is to be able to offer efficient demand-side products, such as appliances and computers. Otherwise we can simply forget about climate change. This also constitutes a huge opportunity for European industry because it will open up an enormous market. Unfortunately, sections of European industry have been lobbying for a weak directive. Why? These are the same industries that want to delocalise production to India, China and similar countries. This shows that the same industrialists who do not care about the global environment also do not care about creating added value and jobs in Europe. I hope the Council will not give in to these lobbyists.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, so as to appease the Commissioner and the other honourable Members, may I state for the record that I am not a fan of deficits, of increasing public debt or of inflation. However, that is not the issue. Are we forecasting a slump, yes or no? Some say, wait and see what happens. But if it does happen, then it will be too late. Others say, wait and the problem will resolve itself. Some take cold comfort in the belief that our economy will rally once the economy rallies in the United States and totally ignore the fact that, with globalisation, if that happens, others will benefit from the recovery. All the wrangling, as a number of honourable members have already said, is about avoiding the notion of public intervention in the economy. I fail to understand why. What is the point in being dogmatic, when you have specific problems and, more to the point, the problem of a slump in front of you? Some of us can imagine various scenarios which marry public intervention with economic stability, that is, increased earnings, without creating the alarming fiscal competition which some people are projecting? The problem is, we need public expenditure, we have the potential to generate public earnings which do not affect the productive structure or development of the economy or its competitiveness. Surely you do not mean to tell me that you would have a problem if someone somewhere did something about annuities or the international speculators throwing hot money around on the stock exchange, or even about the excessive wealth and the frantic consumption of our inflated upper middle classes. We have no scientific answer. We are dogmatic. No to the public sector and no to a Europe which, if it did all this – because only Europe can do all this – would be a federalist Europe. Well, I have never heard such dogmatism in my life!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today, you will receive Parliament's confidence, including mine. However, you still need to win the confidence of the citizens, in the sense that many of them have great expectations of the enlargement, but also a degree of mistrust. I should like to give two reasons for this. Many members of the public are still of the opinion that money is being wasted in Europe, that supervision is ineffective and transparency is in short supply. What they would like to have from this Commission is the reiterated assurance that a zero-tolerance approach will be taken to fraud. That is what Commissioner Prodi promised at the beginning of his term of office and it is on that, certainly in the current climate, that the public will judge him. Furthermore, I still see equality and equal participation of men and women as an objective. Over the past few days, I have seen a huge number of men, and few women, at the highest echelons in this House. Finally, I should like to echo the desire that solidarity with Africa should not be overlooked. At a time when we are celebrating, there is war in Darfour and still no peace in Congo. I could make the list of conflicts much longer. I would urge you to carry with you, throughout the world, as far as the Middle East, Iraq and Africa, the hope for peace, which we in Europe cherish as a basic ambition. Good luck!

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Group fully supports Mr Pirker in his insistence that Article 202 of the Treaty should be followed in its general rule that implementation powers for this regulation should be conferred on the Commission. He is absolutely right to argue that the Commission is in a stronger position to take an impartial view which does not bend to accommodate specific national interests and therefore it is arguably more capable of drawing up adequate data-protection safeguards. Secondly, although Parliament may have its arguments with the Commission from time to time, we do have a much better chance of exercising democratic supervision if the Commission has the implementing powers than if the Council has them. This is because the regulatory committee procedure, coupled with the interinstitutional agreement, entitles Parliament to receive draft implementing measures. And when – rather than if – we achieve codecision in this area, this will enable Parliament to require the Commission to re-examine the measures if the implementing measures are exceeded. We would be foolish, as a Parliament, to rely on the Council’s goodwill rather than on rights which we possess if the Commission has the implementing powers. That is why my group will abstain on some of the amendments of substance which would alter the substantive details of the Eurodac regulation. My group supported these amendments when the focus was on the substance but at this stage it is better to concentrate on the issue of whether the Commission or Council has implementing powers so that we in Parliament state loudly and in unison that our interests lie in backing the Commission. That is the only issue that we ought to concentrate on now and, perhaps with some slight regret, we feel that Parliament’s position needs to be slimmed down to Mr Pirker’s points on comitology.

Political group: ELDR
The decision made will cost jobs in Northern Ireland. This is a wrong decision. I have no objection to supporting stricter legislation for the European Union, but to apply this to exports is unacceptable and the legal base for this decision is dubious. We have no right to dictate to others what they do in their countries outside the EU, nor is it wise to export jobs from the EU to third countries where they will simply produce and sell the products and take over our existing markets.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Parliament has already voted for a resolution on this subject, but there is a problem today: the World Bank is due to make a statement shortly on the significance of the project and we feel that given the implications that it has for the people of Chad and Cameroon, a message from the European Parliament would be welcome today. (Parliament rejected the request) I do not have any amendments relating to Friday, or for the Wednesday or Thursday of the mini-part-session in Brussels. (The order of business was thus adopted)

Political group: Verts-ALE