GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to express my appreciation for Mrs Zorba's sound initiative. We worked well together and managed, via a poll, to gain more insight into the finer points of the cultural industries. It is clear that there is much room for improvement, certainly at European level. The cultural industries are, after all, of great economic significance, and offer much scope for employment. On this basis, I should like to call for culture to figure more prominently in the Structural Funds; SMEs in particular might benefit from this. Culture is also, however, an expression of our national identity. In a united and, soon, enlarged Europe, it is important for us to be aware of this cultural diversity. Museums in all manner of areas are trying to accommodate this, but unfortunately, they are hindered in most European countries by the sometimes exorbitant premiums they have to pay for the exhibits on display. This gives museums in countries where this is not the case a major advantage in the organisation of outstanding exhibitions. This is, in my view, a clear form of distortion of competition, and it must be stopped; it prompts me to urge the Commission to map out the differences in indemnity regulations in the present and future Member States, and subsequently to table a proposal for more streamlined regulations. It is unacceptable for a united Europe to have an elitist group of citizens who are well-informed on what Europe has to offer in terms of culture, while others have to remain deprived of all the fine things that the cultural industries in other European countries have produced and are producing. Thank you. I should therefore like attention to be given to these indemnity regulations.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, our Confederal Group of the – entirely shares all the considerations and proposals regarding nuclear submarine accidents, which are a sad legacy from the Cold War. In order to show that it is not all one-sided, I am bound to refer to the situation of the British submarine which broke down on 12 May in Sicily and has been in Gibraltar, the only British colony in the Mediterranean, since 19 May. The situation is causing a great deal of alarm among the population, because, according to the Royal Navy’s own regulations, within a radius of 10 kilometres there is danger, within 100 kilometres there is still potential danger, and the submarine may only be repaired in category ‘X’ docks. The docks in Gibraltar are type ‘Z’. I find the neo-colonial behaviour on the part of the United Kingdom, which solved the problem by replacing a ‘Z’ with an ‘X’ on a piece of paper using correction fluid or an eraser, very strange. I think that it is important that the Commission and the Council demand that this submarine goes back to the United Kingdom and that they ensure that safety standards are complied with.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, my point of order has, perhaps to some extent been pre-empted by the earlier discussion, but following the Irish referendum I should like to ask whether you, in your capacity as President of Parliament, will write to the President of Ireland congratulating the Irish people on their wise and far-sighted decision, which strikes a blow for freedom, independence, self-determination and the nation state. I wonder whether you will also join me in congratulating our colleague, Dana Rosemary Scallon, on the marvellous role that she played in Ireland in helping to deliver a no vote in the referendum.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our voting list does not seem to be following the same order as yours. That may be our problem rather than yours, but could we just take a moment to clarify? We did not have Amendment 6 or Amendment 30, so we are a bit lost at the moment. Could my colleagues help me here? I think we have lost the page. (Laughter) We have lost a whole page. It is OK. We will catch up. (Laughter and applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I congratulate the Council and Commission on having endured a five-hour marathon of listening to everything the European Parliament wants for the accession process. As you have heard, we have a lot of comments and requests concerning this historic project. I myself am a member of the Romania delegation and an acting member of the Bulgaria delegation. So I have just one point to make: these countries are naturally very anxious that they should not be forgotten. If the door opens for ten countries in Copenhagen at the end of this year, then in Bulgaria and Romania they will want to know where they stand. I would like to ask what signal we will be giving these countries at the end of 2002. Is there a timetable for the second round? Will there also be more aids for accession so that we can improve the process of adaptation? That need not always be money, Mrs Schreyer. There are other forms of aid. We must not forget these countries. The first accession process is only the first stage.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Wallström, I believe that the speeches by my fellow Members, especially those from my group but also from others, have pinpointed the fundamental problem that we have in this report. We are not discussing the extension of rights to information, which we all, clearly, support. We are not discussing the Convention because, as has been said, this is not what it is about as it has been signed. What we are discussing is a rather more general issue, which we have interpreted, Commissioner, as the Commission trying to impose its will in order to make the Convention workable. This has also been well documented in the speeches by various Members and in the tabled amendments: that is to say what some Members have portrayed as an attempt to fast-track environmental legislation. From a legal point of view and given the legal background of the Union and the Member States, the reason for this is not understood. Now, I am convinced that this reason originates in a healthy concern, in good intentions on the part of the Commissioner and Members, but we must be very vigilant about this aspect, because there is the risk that we will be starting a process that will delegitimise our democratic institutions, made up of elected members, governing bodies, assemblies at municipal and local level; in short, the system of democratic guarantees that are the only supreme guarantees able to fully represent citizens’ interests. Now, it is only right and proper to want to pay particular attention to the environment, and it is altogether desirable to want to involve all citizens. We must be careful, however, not to go beyond the limit of the so-called special legislation. When I hear Mrs Schörling talk about no limitations, neither time limits nor geographical ones, then the risk of creating counter powers becomes serious. If this risk were to arise in tomorrow’s final text, then I think that we would do well, as some Members have said, to vote against it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as previous speakers have already said, we are gradually losing all hope of South Africa's becoming a stable factor in Africa. The tremendous impoverishment of large sections of the population, which goes hand in glove with the massive spread of AIDS and with drug-dealing and racketeering, are real causes for concern. Do we not realise that poverty and the need for survival are a crisis waiting to happen in Africa? This is where the crisis prevention is needed that we have spoken of so frequently over recent weeks, this is where we need self-help development programmes for the black population, health protection, support for preventive health care and, most importantly, educational support, before it is too late. All this was discussed at length. We also discussed something else, namely no arms exports to countries where poverty may disturb social peace. Unfortunately, the Council has not honoured the promise made in the European Parliament. Sweden, together with Germany, Great Britain and Italy, supplies arms to the value of 43 billion in local currency. All the intentions expressed here, namely conflict prevention programmes without arms exports, have been forgotten by the Swedish government. That is not all. The whole thing was set up by bribing the South African government. That shows that our code of conduct for arms exports is still full of holes and that we still cannot use it as an instrument for real conflict prevention. We need to work on this. We need clear criteria and transparent mechanisms so that this cannot happen again.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to make a few remarks, but, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs who, in my view, have done some excellent work on this particularly complicated dossier. We have discussed every aspect of this issue during the debate, so I shall simply make two or three comments. The first comment is that we must, in a situation of this kind, always strive to disregard all political considerations, in any case, as far as this is possible, and to give a verdict based on law. The second comment, which is also an idea underlying this report, relates to the concern for equity, balance and equality between MEPs. I think that we attach great importance to this, as well as to the desire to affirm, by adopting this type of position and this type of report, the prerogatives of Parliament and its Members. This is also a point to which we cannot fail to attach great importance, especially since it seeks to harmonise criminal law, something I am hoping and praying for. I would hope that this harmonisation aims to achieve greater freedom, not only for the Members but for all the citizens of the European Union. In this area, however, there is unfortunately still a great deal to be done. I would like to make two final comments. The first is that it is always regrettable, in matters relating to freedom of individuals, to favour a collective approach over a personal approach. But the rapporteur is not without good reason. The procedure states that things should be thus and I think that, in relation to issues which concern individuals and their freedom, their situation under the law, we must ensure that the procedures provide for an assessment of each individual case. This avoids a collective approach or a political approach to the problem, even if this has not worked in the case before us today. My second and final comment concerns the case of Mr Dell’Utri and I echo the calls that have been made to differentiate this case from others for the reasons that have, quite rightly, been outlined.

Political group: PSE
Although I do not have any major problems with most of the amendments adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I voted against this report, because some amendments go beyond the scope of this directive. This applies, in particular, to the recital which proposes a timetable for defining what might be the specific rules governing ‘organic’ winegrowing. The product definition proposed is comparable with that of a registered designation of origin. We can, of course, recognise the legitimacy of wine produced from organically grown grapes. However, to go on from there to attempt to define an ‘organic’ wine, for which the winemaking process is no different from the traditional process used to produce a wine with a registered designation of origin, would be to ignore the fact that the ‘registered designation of origin’ concept is based on areas of land designated according to their soils, and production conditions defined on the basis of local customs, whereas ‘organic’ wines can be produced using grapes from vineyards which are not authorised to use a registered designation of origin. Moreover, to accept the image of two types of wine production would give the illusion that one was better than the other, thereby disregarding the fact that traditional winegrowing provides all the quality guarantees necessary for consumer confidence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since the economic system based on paid work became widespread, emigration has always served to provide the enterprises of the developed countries with labour. That is how US power was built. France, Great Britain and other countries would not have developed without the contribution of immigrants from their colonial empires or from poorer countries of Eastern Europe. Unlike the slave trade, these population movements were free; migrants were not chained or whipped. The hunger and poverty of their places of origin were enough to drive them to emigrate. Where that emigration was regulated, it was done to serve the interests of the capitalist enterprises, in other words, the big employers of the host country. In other words, this report is not dazzling in its originality. True, it proposes that modern wage slaves should be well integrated, and it even proposes positive measures for women, but their main purpose is to control them and adapt them to the needs of the labour market. What is new in this report, on the other hand, is the proposal for temporary immigration, which will allow big western capital to benefit from a workforce already trained elsewhere and therefore trained free of charge and to get rid of it once it thinks it no longer needs it. Well, that is an inhuman system because it is the market that decides instead of people and that situation will continue so long as the present economic system exists. What, however, the workers can and must be given in order to safeguard their collective interests, whether they are citizens or migrants, is a strict equality of rights so that the employers cannot set one against the other by introducing a competition that will be harmful to all. That is why we are calling for complete equality of civil and political rights for all who live and work on the Union’s soil, including the right to move freely, to leave and to return. We call, moreover, for the legalisation of the situation of all so-called illegal immigrant workers, who are only illegal because the authorities refuse to grant them papers. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The philosophy of Community immigration policy is quite clear in the proposal for a directive we are currently examining: we will continue to receive immigrants from third countries only if and when these serve the economic interests of the European Union. Consequently, the proposed conditions of entry and residence for third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment are so restrictive and tough that very few candidates for immigration will be able to meet them. Such an approach is all the more unacceptable because it is backed by a Community budget that is cutting funds intended for developing countries, because in Monterrey, the EU produced nothing more than a grotesque commitment to allocate only 0.39% of its GDP to public development aid until 2006 – instead of the 0.7% set internationally a considerable time ago; because the policies established at the WTO are not benefiting the poorest countries. This has led to the gap between the richest and poorest countries growing, to encompass a further 100 million poor people. It is true that the European Union cannot receive all of the world’s poor onto its territory. On the other hand, this cannot be its response to the problems of poverty in the world and to the racist and xenophobic discourse that has recently been flourishing in some Member States, in total contrast to the humanist values that should be guiding it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, space is essential for European competitiveness. It is vital that our continent should also be able to develop and produce new technology. European innovations and different components cannot be left out of the market in any possible competitive situation because of trade and other barriers. The rapid development of telecommunications means Europe must have adequate capacity under its own control by means of satellites. As the levels of investment required in this sector are enormous we should support European initiatives to develop space technology through the industry’s umbrella organisation. We do not necessarily need European hero-movie astronauts for this in Europe. The European Space Agency’s satellites will instead observe the important matter of the state of the environment, help in issues of transport and map the Earth’s inner space. Information on this should definitely be allowed to become more widespread in Europe. The European Union’s goal is a knowledge-based economy. That cannot work in any harmonious way without the space factor being involved. In fact it is important that Europe also integrates at the level of the space issue and is able to function properly as seen from space. So many of the problems we have today can be partially solved if we have viable and effective technology in space.

Political group: PSE
I should just like to make one comment: it is the employers, the bosses, who are forcing these workers to move into other national territories. Workers are good for paying taxes, they are good for having profit sweated out of them, but there is no need for them to understand their minimum rights. This is totally unacceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am bound, in the end, to lend my support to this report, which emphasises the importance of the Commission proposal to create a Single European Sky by 31 December 2004 at the latest. Creating a Single European Sky seems to me to be imperative if we want not only to optimise the use of our existing airspace, to establish more stringent aviation safety conditions, and the safe and effective management of projected increases in traffic, but also to create conditions allowing European airlines to compete with others. This proposal, which must allow a certain amount of harmonisation and interoperability of air navigation systems, is not, however, without its problems. The definition of cooperation between Eurocontrol and the Community is one such problem, as is the definition of cooperation between civil and military authorities. I am supporting this report to emphasise that the creation of a Single European Sky must not be delayed in any way. A reduction in costs relating to air traffic control, fewer delays and increased system capacity are all at stake, as well as, in particular, a considerable improvement of the safety conditions.

Political group: PSE
The issue is about the institutional regulations of European big business regarding the acquisition and takeover of major companies. On the one hand, there is the Anglo-Saxon tradition, characterised by laissez-faire and open market principles. On the other hand, there is a corporate and protectionist continental tradition. It is no coincidence that one proposal was put forward by a German fellow member and that the counter-proposal in yesterday’s debate was advocated mostly by British fellow members. Although Mr Lehne’s report contains certain corporate-patriarchal consideration for the staff of major companies, we do not believe that any of the alternatives serve the interests of employees. We reject them both and instead require the Commission to return with a proposal on this issue which deals with ways of protecting the interests and needs of employees and consumers in conjunction with the acquisition and takeover of major companies.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to draw attention to a region at the very edge of the continent, the Caucasus, which the Minister has already mentioned and which the rapporteur, Mrs Napoletano, has touched on. It is a matter of interest to Europe, for the Caucasus has been part of Europe during many periods of history. Armenia and Georgia are two of the oldest Christian countries. In the Middle Ages, Armenia was considered to be a major European power. At the end of the nineteenth century, nobody would have denied that Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, was a powerful centre among the pioneers of the oil industry, even in European terms. Today, moreover, Azerbaijan is the principal supplier of crude oil to the European Union. After the First World War and before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the national governments of the three countries, despite their diversity, turned to European values. The Conference of Versailles gave a number of European powers the task of assisting the birth of the new democracies. The three Republics participated in the 1972-1975 Pan-European Helsinki Conference as part of the Soviet delegation, and all three are part of the Council of Europe. They are therefore not foreign to Europe. The EU-Southern Caucasus Parliamentary Cooperation Committee has visited these countries on a number of occasions, and the solution for finding a way out of the crisis put forward by the three governments lay, each time, in establishing closer relations with Europe as quickly as possible. It is hoped that even the potentially extremely dangerous crises such as the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh can be resolved in a European context. The United States and Russia are involved in the region for economic reasons. The national governments, with different emphases, of course, therefore have to carry out balancing operations. Nevertheless, they would prefer another protagonist such as the European Union to be more involved. Our Cooperation Committee – for which I have appointed myself spokesman – was impressed by the intrinsic feeling displayed by the three countries – Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan – of historically being part of Europe.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I warmly welcome this report by my Socialist colleague Mark Watts, which will enable EU Member States to enforce international standards for ship safety, pollution, prevention and onboard living and working conditions. This report has the potential positively to affect a broad number of issues: it could enhance the lives of people working on board ships and, moreover, it is in line with the EU's attempts to take a pioneering role in protecting the environment. The calls for 'black boxes' which carry voyage data recorders, are a vital and concrete way to ensure that those ships calling at EU ports all adhere to common standards. - Ortuondo Larrea report (A5-0441/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have listened to Mr Beasley repeat the shameless arguments that, in Latvia and Estonia, they are flagrantly violating the rights of almost half the population in these countries, who were born and have worked there and whose only crime is that they are of Russian extraction or speak Russian. These people are being forced with humiliating examinations to abandon their country. At the same time, communist parties are banned in these countries and their cadres are being persecuted, as are the veterans of the anti-fascist war, and monuments are being erected in honour of the SS and the Nazi conquerors. At the same time, the universities are being closed, while the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is being forced to open universities and to ensure the Albanian minority, 25% of the population, is represented in the parliament and in the government. The problem is that similar views and these sorts of violations are also being supported by the Commissioner materially responsible for enlargement, Mr Verheugen, and by the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, who said in a recent response to my letter that, in his view, the ban on a communist party was no reason to censure a country by preventing it from becoming a member of the European Union. However, because the communist parties in the Member States of the European Union are still legal, I fear that this is a foretaste of autocratic and anti-democratic measures to come. That is why I am protesting, and I have insisted today also that this protest on my part go on record.

Political group: GUE-NGL