GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as Chairman of the European Parliament delegation to COP­VI, I wish to begin by expressing my pleasure at the excellent relationship that has developed between the Commission and Parliament over this last week. If there is one area in which there has been no lack of unity, it is in this relationship. I am bound to regret the fact, however, that the will of some ministers of the 15 Member States has been directed more towards racing to attend press conferences than creating a genuine spirit of unity that will guarantee a global policy on climate change. Madam President, we knew that this COP­VI would be of particularly great importance: it represented abandoning the stage of discussion in which we had been stuck since 1992 and moving on towards action. Since we were not able to reach an agreement, we failed in our objective of moving on towards action. To put it frankly, if we have to make an assessment of what took place, we could say that out of the three parties participating in the Conference, only one tried to reach an agreement and tried to achieve a global policy on climate change, and that was the European Union. The United States – but let us also state quite clearly that it was the entire “umbrella group” – concocted a whole series of excuses for not reaching any type of agreement at COP­VI, in The Hague. By May, by Bonn, the European Union must take action on two fronts: firstly through diplomacy, since the scenario that the United States will ratify the agreement is the least likely, and so diplomatic action must be developed with the other members of the umbrella group. Secondly, we must act within the Union in order to guarantee our credibility. Only if we have this credibility will the European Union be able to lead the debate and the action at COP­VI “B” in Bonn.

Political group: PPE-DE
Article 11(2) of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights states that ‘the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected’ In fact, what is more fundamental in a democracy than the freedom to communicate and receive information? Yet, in Europe today, media concentration, exacerbated by technological developments, means that this crucial media pluralism is at risk, if not already compromised in some cases. It is high time that the Commission tackled the issue and ensured, particularly in the television sector, that there are many diverse operators, as it has already done so in many other sectors. Although the existing founding treaties do not provide a sufficient legal basis for this essential regulation, it is now crucial that the Convention works on a new constitutional basis to ensure media plurality. This is not enough, however, as the plurality of private operators alone cannot fulfil the fundamental role of information in a modern democracy, nor safeguard cultural diversity. That is why we must reaffirm the importance of public service broadcasting. I am thinking not only of national public service television channels, but also local channels, whose value in terms of providing social interaction and restoring social links is indisputable. (Speech abbreviated in accordance with Rule 120(7) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission’s preliminary draft budget contains few surprises as far as the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is concerned. As rapporteur for this committee, I would just like to highlight three points that are of interest to the committee, within the context of the conciliation procedure. One concerns the information campaign in the last phase before the introduction of the euro bank notes and coins. The remaining time will have to be used intensively, which means that the information campaign for the euro (PRINCE 2001) must be continued with high priority. We must step up the information campaign so as to avoid any uncertainty on the part of the public, particularly in the run-up to the introduction of the euro banknotes and in view of the exchange rate parity between the euro and the dollar. The Lisbon guidelines constitute a second important point in the eyes of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. In addition to providing sufficient means and technologies for SME, it is also important to support programmes and actions that improve the self-financing and outside financing facilities for the Union’s key players on the job creation front. This includes developing markets for financial services, providing risk capital, but also giving special attention to female entrepreneurship, as has already been called for by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in the guidelines. My third point concerns the debate about personnel. If the Commission wants to honour its Treaty obligations in respect of merger control, anti-trust law and state aids then my committee believes that the Commission should make the Directorate-General for Competition a top priority when it comes to the redistribution of personnel in this area.

Political group: PSE
The Italian Constitution solemnly bans the former kings of the House of Savoy, their consorts and male descendants from entering or residing on Italian territory. The Italian Constitution is the result of the great historical agreement between all the democratic forces which fought against fascism and to liberate Italy during the Second World War. It is intolerable that the European Parliament should ask us to breach the provisions of this Constitution, which is one of the most democratic and advanced Constitutions in the world. In this regard, it should be remembered that the House of Savoy not only welcomed the fascist dictatorship and supported the fascist attack on democratic Spain and the fascist imperialist war against Ethiopia, but that it also permitted the alliance with Hitler’s racist regime, going so far as to apply the shameful anti-Semitic laws in Italy. Once Italy and the whole of Europe had been caught up in the catastrophe of the Second World War, the royal family fled from Rome and shamefully abandoned the Italian troops to their fate, leaving them without orders or leaders at the time of the armistice with the allied forces. Moreover, the House of Savoy has never acknowledged the sovereignty of the Republic or the irrevocable nature of the decision to create a Republic, which is enshrined in the Constitution. Mr President, we have no hesitation or uncertainty in rejecting the request, which is unexpected in this context, to breach the Italian Constitution. We have no hesitation in reiterating that there is no room in my country for the descendants of the former kings of Italy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, when the situation heats up, we have to keep cool heads. It is pointless, therefore, at times of crisis, to think of what Europe could be but is not, and throw everything away on this bitter contradiction: throw away 50 years – as President Prodi said – of intelligence, unity, peace, admirable institutional structures and positive results. The Europe which it is possible to have is the current one and therefore let us not feel ashamed to talk of Lisbon, welfare, the labour market, energy, telecommunications, task forces, the Stability Pact or the Convention but let us move forward. This is the only path there is: we are condemned to following this path. One final point: I feel deeply offended as an MEP, as a European and as an Italian by the irresponsible tolerance which Mr Cox showed for the placards held up by left-wing fellow Members in this Chamber. While ‘Stop the war’ is understandable, it is completely unacceptable for placards with the words ‘Stop the killers’ to be displayed in this Chamber. In Mr Cox’s language, ‘killer’ means ‘murderer’. The United States and the United Kingdom liberated my country 60 years ago, and gave it back democracy and freedom. For the past and for the present, I simply say ‘thank you’ to the United States and the United Kingdom.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, while we are yet deliberating in this House, live pictures of Parliament are coursing through the world of the media, and they are of the collective ‘no’ that the overwhelming majority has just delivered to a man who is doing precisely the opposite of the things that this report stands for and which constitute Europe's core values. Together and quite decisively, we have said ‘no’ to those who would seduce us with their radicalism, and to those who treat humanity with contempt, and, in this report, we are saying ‘yes’ to human rights with no ifs or buts. This is far from being only something we call for in politics; it is also a challenge to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, and, although it might be wondered what it has to do with this issue, it is actually a great deal, because, in an age of globalisation, it is increasingly the multinational enterprises that are called on to take steps in this direction. Whilst we in politics have to hear the accusations of hypocrisy levelled at the former foreign policy of the USA and at the EU's foreign policy, which does not yet really exist, that accusation applies yet more to businesses. Only if they too manage to come round to defending human rights with no ifs or buts, will we be spared much of what we all feared was coming to us when the terrible events of 11 September struck us. What is astonishing about this report is not so much that it pays lip-service to many familiar things, but that there was, in our Industry Committee, which is a rather conservative set-up and not very familiar with these topics, unanimous support for establishing social standards, and for a Green Paper that would trenchantly call for social responsibility on the part of enterprises, even though the person to whom today's ‘no’ was directed is also a member of this committee. Our decision was unanimous. Why? Because the despiser of democracy, who plays this down, was not even there and did no work on it! I hope that all of Europe's voters will see this, and, at the same time, also see when we are saying ‘no’ and to what we are saying ‘yes’, that is, to this report and to human rights without ifs and buts.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as regular as clockwork, we make high-flown statements and condemn the violence in the Middle East. Is that really all we can manage to do? Why can the European Union not play a more active role in this conflict? Right now, there are various reasons why the European Union should be playing a pioneering role in the peace process. Sadly, recent events have made a further radicalisation between Israel and the Palestinians more than likely. The status of the United States as a good international negotiator has been dealt a few serious blows after Afghanistan and Iraq. The implementation of the international step-by-step plan appears a long way off, so the European Union should act. Peace and stability are entirely in its interest. After all, we are the region's largest trading partner and the largest donor of humanitarian and financial aid. When will our words at last be followed by deeds?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Bouwman, ladies and gentlemen, in the majority of normal cases, the main – and often the only – source of resources necessary to sustain the salaried worker and their family is the income generated through their work, that is, their salary. Therefore, with the salary protection system, as well as the mechanisms to facilitate, in a privileged fashion, the payment of salaries from the real assets of the debtor employee, the legislator creates a specific guarantee of the payment of salaries under the responsibility of the public system, often structured around a public administration body, in cases of employer insolvency. This was the main objective of Directive 80/987/EEC: to guarantee within the Community a minimum level of protection in the event of employer insolvency. It is true that the application of this directive met with very many difficulties, both in relation to the definition of the concept of insolvency for the purposes of the directive, the need to set limits in relation to the time period and amount of responsibility and the increasingly frequent consequences of transnationality – as the rapporteur has said – and globalisation, as well as the need to adapt this directive to other previous directives and the need to simplify the rules relating to the payment of salaries owed, and all of these are difficulties which the modification is intended to overcome. The modifications of the text of the common position strengthen the objective of worker protection, laid down in the directive, and I believe that they represent considerable progress. We still need to define, with the necessary clarity, certain concepts which need to be more precise – possibly due to the fact that social reality is almost always a step ahead of legal reality - such as the concept of the worker, so that it includes all real forms of employment, the problems resulting from productive decentralisation or externalisation, the concept of the role of salary or work dependence in relation to economic dependence, and also that of the proper use of the guarantee institution. However, on the whole, we should be pleased that we have reached this point. I believe that the concern of the Commission, Parliament and the Council during the Spanish Presidency demonstrate that it is possible and feasible to create ‘more Europe’ and furthermore shows the candidate countries the direction they must take in order to achieve a more social Europe. I therefore believe that I should end by congratulating the rapporteur, despite the fact that, strictly speaking, not all the desirable objectives have been met in theory. Nevertheless, surely the possible is the enemy of the ideal and, now that we are so close to the 52nd anniversary of the date on which we can say that Europe began to be built, perhaps we should say that Europe is being built slowly, step by step, but we should also stress, Commissioner, that the social dimension is finally taking the place it deserves in this Europe we want to see.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I had a dream about Mr Söderman! Yes, it was actually him! We were having dinner, but it was not Mr Söderman as he is today, it was a young Mr Söderman, very young. We were friends and we were chatting and he said to me: ‘My dream, Mr Fatuzzo, is one day, when I am grown up, to become the European Ombudsman, because I want to be able to check up on what the European institutions do and, if there is any bureaucrat who is out of order, I want to be able to find that out and take action so that all the citizens of Europe have the chance to benefit from European laws’. Well, Mr President, at last the dream that Mr Söderman had in my dream has actually come true with the approval of this directive. - Camisón Asensio Report (A5-0236/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
It is with considerable sadness, and with full sympathy for your frustration, High Representative Solana, that we have seen the ongoing deterioration of the situation in the Middle East over the past few months, especially when we were convinced, after 11 September, of the urgent need to find a political solution to the problem. I should simply like to recall the closing statement of the special session of the Mediterranean Forum, held in Brussels in November, before the vote on 13 December on our recommendations preceding the formal declaration by the Laeken Council. I would remind you that this statement called for the immediate and unconditional implementation of the Tenet plan and of the recommendations of the Mitchell committee, and reiterated our conviction, Mr Cohn-Bendit, that establishing an impartial monitoring mechanism would serve the interests of both parties. It has to be said that all of this has come to nothing and that, in fact, recent events seem to have closed the door on any serious attempt to restart negotiations. Although, like William of Orange, I believe that it is neither necessary to have hope in order to embark on a course of action nor is it necessary to succeed in order to persevere, I feel that we must welcome the fact, Mr Solana, that you are ceaseless, as you have just demonstrated, in making every possible effort to give renewed hope, which is so badly needed in that part of the world, to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. We can only encourage you to pursue all initiatives for cooperation between the United Nations, the United States and the most directly involved Arab States, in order to put forward proposals, in conjunction with them, on actions that are crucial to restoring mutual trust and respect, without which the current downward spiral of violence can never be halted. This is why I am not in favour of our Parliament today playing the role of excommunicator. As Commissioner Patten said in his last speech to this House, ‘What is past, is past’. What we are interested in is the future and the immediate future. I also feel that I am summing up the opinion of the majority of Members when I repeat that we in Parliament are ready and willing to fulfil our mandate to take the initiative by issuing another invitation – why not President Cox? – to the representatives of the two States at the highest level, perhaps even Mr Arafat himself, to come and explain their intentions to us, as the speakers of the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Knesset did in September 2000. By the same token, we would like to encourage you to give positive consideration, in conjunction with the Presidency-in-Office of the Council, to the possibility of holding an ambitious peace conference along the lines of the conference held in Madrid, in which, Mr Solana, you played such an important part, as you reminded us. In our own interests and for the sake of coherence with the spirit of our unreserved commitment to the fight against terrorism, we must play as active a role as possible in saving the peace process, while respecting the legitimate rights of the region’s peoples.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to make a brief point, Mr President, that, in Mrs Jeggle’s case, there is nothing to prevent parliamentary immunity being waived, even more so because the events, which today justify such a request, took place before Mrs Jeggle was elected to the European Parliament and they bear no relation, either direct or indirect, to her political activities. I will, however, briefly comment on what the two previous speakers said. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was, I believe, unanimous in its support of this outcome also because, although the offence was, admittedly, serious, there were, as far as I am aware, no victims, and because given the nature of this offence, Mrs Jeggle does not run any real risk of being imprisoned or prevented from exercising her mandate. Having also taken this into consideration, the Committee decided, rightly in my view, to waive the parliamentary immunity of Mrs Jeggle.

Political group: PSE
I voted in favour of this report. We have been trying for years to restore consumer confidence and the European Food Authority is one way of doing so. There is no such thing as zero risk and we know what consequences a bacteriological problem (not linked only to terrorism) can have for a large number of our citizens. Safety must therefore lie at the heart of the proposed system. Yet we must not give way to panic, for let us not forget that the European food chain is one of the safest in the world. If it is to be effective and credible, however, the Authority will have to be supported by top scientific experts, while also drawing on the network of existing national agencies. Another important aspect that needs emphasising is that we must separate the evaluation of the risk, which falls within the scientific domain, and its management (the measures that are decided), which falls solely within the political domain. Let me remind you that whatever measures are decided must be proportionate to the level of the risk incurred. In the event of a perceived risk, but which has no foundation, for instance a rumour, we should respond by informing the consumers. In the event of a potential risk, we must take precautionary measures. Lastly, in the event of a real risk, we have to take preventive measures. If we want the European Food Authority to be as effective as possible, it will have to be completely independent, its composition will be a determining factor, and its decisions will have to be highly transparent. Lastly, the penalties imposed for serious errors or fraud must not only be considerable but, above all, applied.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the , I would like to say how grateful and obliged we are to the Commission and the Council for the excellent preparation of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Qatar. Commissioner Lamy, you and your colleagues achieved something extraordinary in starting from an extremely difficult situation just before Doha and nonetheless, by the end of the meeting, getting all the subjects wanted by the European Union into the programme for the round beginning in 2002, this despite the usual, and largely unjustified, attacks by India and the Cairns Group countries on the European Union. Essential elements of our pre-conference resolution were included. Two weeks later, in Accra, I saw for myself the pride of Ghana's government representatives in pointing out that Africa had played an independent role this time, and this could, among other things, be attributed to good preparatory work by the European Union and in particular by Commissioner Lamy. The developing countries, particularly Africa, are now and for the future fully involved in negotiations, and this was also one of our main demands. The political declaration on TRIPS represents a respectable result for the African mediators, something that you have already mentioned this morning, Commissioner Lamy. The demands of the developing countries and of the Africans – ranging from the need for comprehensive technical aid to the Cotonou Agreement's exceptions up to 2008 – have very largely been met. The core European demands will, though, also be included in the new round of negotiations. I do not need to go into the details again. What is important is that we in the European Union can input our conceptions of a socially and environmentally responsible market economy into the system of free and fair world trade and that they can also, slowly, prevail. I also believe, though, that there is still more that we can do to make the WTO more democratic. Mr Lamy, you too have referred to the need for us to achieve the creation of a parliamentary assembly. We in this Parliament should retain our leadership role and also ask the Commission to continue its financial support for us, so that we can especially involve the representatives of the African parliaments. Let me return to a point made in this morning's debate. One of our colleagues, Mrs Lucas, pointed out that the outcome was poor, indeed unacceptable. I thought, here comes a European justification of European interests, but she only referred to India and certain NGOs, which... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE