GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President-in-Office, this morning you mentioned the report Parliament has asked me to present on Turkey’s accession process. I think I can announce the body of the conclusions today. Like the Commission, Parliament salutes Turkey’s endeavours in drawing up a programme for developing its legal arsenal to comply more closely with the requirements of the European Union, especially in terms of respect for human rights. At the same time we understand the stir caused among the various political parties and public opinion as it recognises the magnitude of the reforms that country must agree to introduce before it joins the Union. We want our partners to know that the European Union has no intention of interfering in their domestic affairs, but is offering them a contract under terms now redefined under the accession partnership and the agreement on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is up to them to accept or refuse that contract. In that connection, I believe we must have the courage to tell the Turkish people that there are at least two prior conditions governing its accession to Europe. First, respect for the need for identity. This is being demonstrated across Europe by our fellow citizens all the more clearly because they have the greatest desire to protect their roots in the face of the ineluctable progress of globalisation. Europe is resolute in recognising that need for identity, aware that its diversity is the source of its wealth. That is why it insists on the rights, but also the duties, of minorities. That is the spirit in which the Union proposes to help Turkey find a solution to the Kurdish problem. There must also be a solution to the Cyprus problem as soon as possible, because nobody in Europe would accept a wall continuing to divide it, like those of Berlin, Beirut and Sarajevo (amongst others), which have now, fortunately, come down.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to echo the words of thanks that have been expressed not only to the rapporteurs, but also to the shadow rapporteurs. Today, we are presented with a good opportunity of completing the whole food legislation package, namely the assessment of safety right down to the last step. What we are discussing today makes possible the repeal of a huge number of directives. We will be able to tie up all the loose ends with regard to the issue of the verifiability of food production, the integral chain approach, or in other words the stable-to-table approach. There are quite a few snags in the compromise package that the Council and the Commission have tabled and which was rubberstamped by Parliament. However, everything is at risk of falling somewhat into disarray at the last minute because there seem to be a few misunderstandings. I am also addressing Mr Bowe when saying this. What is it about? It is about defending the compromise that the Council has tabled. What is at issue is that it should be possible for companies where food is produced to take on some additional responsibility, that a thorough check is carried out into what is wrong with the meat and that we subsequently, under the final responsibility of the official veterinary and the government that has appointed the veterinary, state whether we think the meat is up to scratch or not. In the Netherlands, this system has been functioning to everyone's satisfaction for some years now. Mr Bowe stated a moment ago that a few years ago, there was a problem in Scotland involving red meat, but I should like to point out that a different system is used over there. What we have to do is to ensure that the responsibility is laid on those shoulders that can unreservedly carry it. That means that the system needs flexibility and that red tape should be reduced to a minimum, but that, however, guarantees must be in place such that the consumer can count on being given food that is safe. I would therefore urge the House to support the Council's compromise.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to speak about the letter that three Heads of Government – Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac – have drawn up ahead of this Spring Summit. It represents an attempt to demonstrate their unity once more and to set the tone for the debate at the summit. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, because I think that it is good that some broad lines are set out amid the multitude of documents that crop up around this kind of summit, but I think that the epistle that these three have drawn up really plunges to new depths. It is an insult to the equilibrium and depth that characterise the Lisbon process, which we have now been working on for three years. In addition, I think that it clumsily upsets the careful balance in the Lisbon objectives, because – and a number of points have already been mentioned in the debate – it leaves out a number of objectives completely, and it only places the emphasis on the interests of trade and industry. It does indeed seem as though the letter has been copied from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Federation of German Industries (BDI) and the French Enterprises Association (MEDEF), the employers’ lobby organisations in the respective countries. I took particular exception to a passage concerning the Hartz Commission. A kind of commission is proposed at European level based on the German model, but evidently the governments in London, Berlin and Paris do not realise that a European directive on temporary employment, the cornerstone of the Hartz Commission, is already under discussion in Brussels. An extraordinary deal has been struck between London and Berlin concerning that very directive, to block any decisions being taken on it; a deal which has to do with another dossier, the takeover bids directive, which is also being discussed at the moment. It is absolutely absurd that, in the self same letter that has now been drawn up ahead of the Spring Summit, it is proposed to set up a kind of Hartz Commission that reinvents the wheel, instead of now working constructively on that directive and a decision being taken on it in March, within the Economic and Social Council.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like just briefly to return to the tragic situation, referred to by Mr Sterckx, experienced by refugees living at a number of borders in Europe today, and to inform you that about a week ago I paid a visit to the Sangatte centre opened by the French Government and run by the Red Cross. This centre accommodates refugees attempting to enter Great Britain, apparently attracted by more favourable reception conditions, and also because of the greater problems in entering at other borders. I should like to inform you that this centre processes an average of between 800 and 1000 refugees a day, from all over the world, particularly from Iran, Iraq and one region in Turkey, namely the Kurdish region, and the centre has received 16 000 refugees since opening eleven months ago. This is a direct result of the lack of harmonisation in the conditions for reception and the status of refugees in Europe. Admittedly, the French and Belgian case referred to earlier is an important one. This must not, however, be allowed to dull our determination. Instead, it should increase it. I have written to Commissioner Vitorino to this effect, in order to convey our determination to have a joint European policy on this, indeed our demand for this, before further tragedies have a chance to happen.

Political group: PSE
First of all I would like to congratulate Mr Martin on the excellent result. The problems and challenges surrounding aquaculture were brought to the fore well in his report. You can also tell that he did his own research and went to look at the places where this work is being done. I do have a couple of comments, however. One of aquaculture’s most significant problems is its poor image, which is the result of a lack of knowledge. We will only be able to eliminate this lack of knowledge if we have clear test data at our disposal. The European Union must therefore enable research to be carried out. Clarity will result in a better image, and this will enable the sector to solve a major problem, which it must do by means of communication. With regard to the finances, the economic viability of the sector is a significant concern in Europe. If we want to offer opportunities for long–term economic viability, we must not allow the sector to become addicted to subsidies. Self–help is better. My starting point is: allow the market to go its own way, start up and drive itself onwards, and the sector should then be able to look after itself. Apart from that, we do want to handle the frameworks responsibly, so we must define frameworks and preconditions ourselves. This market must be put on the right track. Regulation must be simple, clear and honest. Removing regulatory barriers will make the market more consistent, more transparent and consequently more efficient. This provides better opportunities for competitively priced products, which will also benefit European consumers. Furthermore, consumers benefit from food safety and transparency, both of which are particularly important. It must always be possible to guarantee food safety. We must, however, remain rational in this regard and not make ridiculous demands. If something is 100% good, it does not need to be 150% good. Let us keep both feet on the ground. Imposing excessive demands will pull the plug on small businesses, and they will not survive. I therefore call for simple regulation. Clear and workable on the one hand, and controllable and enforceable on the other. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party will endorse this report. I think that aquaculture makes a positive contribution to the preservation of natural fish stocks.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, media freedom and independence do not go well with accumulated economic power, not to mention monopolies. This is especially true when one is dealing with political power wielded by a head of government. The name to mention here is Berlusconi. The Italian media tycoon and, in one and the same person, prime minister, along with Mr Murdoch and Herr Kirch, have given the champions of unfettered press freedom a lesson in fear. That the Kirch empire has collapsed can be of little comfort in view of the pressure exerted on public service broadcasters by commercial enterprises – I am referring to the cost of rights to sporting events among other things – and in view of an increasing concentration of regional, national and worldwide media with growing cross-border involvements. Media concentration to an illicit degree endangers diversity and pluralism of opinion and the promotion of cultural diversity. Volume 44 of ‘Media Research’ a series of treatises published by the North Rhine-Westphalia Media Institute, has come out in the last couple of days; it gives a powerful description of media concentration's adverse effects on society's democratic and cultural foundations. It also has to be said without equivocation that the rule of law in Italy is in danger. It has already had the worst of the fight. All this leads to only one conclusion, namely that European regulations are needed to limit concentration in the media, because national law does not apply outside the borders of states, or also because – as in Italy – the effort is not even being made. Reference has already been made to the way the Italian State President's profound concern has led him to call for an Italian law to deprive the prime minister of practical political control over the services of the public-sector broadcaster RAI, and to restrict his power as a private individual over the media. Berlusconi is in every respect a special case, and one that it must be hoped will remain unique, involving an array of legal actions relating to tax evasion, forged documents, perjury, payments from slush funds, the bribing of judges and similar things, not all of which have been brought to a conclusion. We therefore call on the Convention to impose a constitutional ban on any such agglomeration of power, which is positively indecent. Even the Pope – or so we have heard – is advocating regulations to safeguard pluralism and freedom of opinion. That, Mr Prodi, Commissioners, is why I say it is now time for you to take some action! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs Zorba, Commissioner, on the contrary, theatre is not dead. It has been pronounced dead at regular intervals ever since it came into being. It lives! Deserving protection as the biotope of every democratic society, the theatre lives not only thanks to the antics of its exponents, but also thanks to public interest and childlike curiosity, and thanks to national policies. We all know that this responsibility is borne by the Fifteen, soon to be twenty-five and more. Like Mr Beazley and others who have spoken before me, I wonder whether everyone is truly aware of the enormous political and delicate task that we have been set to do. The business world has galloped on ahead, but the EU's citizens are still tottering along behind integration. Europe must help where it can. Let me first thank you, Geneviève Fraisse, for your initiative, and for this wonderful report. If, within the internal market framework, we enact laws relating to culture, we must also make full use of every instrument at our disposal in the service of the many kinds of theatre – whether houses rich in tradition, buildings commandeered for alternative uses, streets between Lisbon and Helsinki, Athens and London – to protect this diversity, helping it to develop further and come to full bloom. This will call for a shared effort on the part of all of us. It is primarily to the Member States that I appeal. We have to do away with fiscal discrimination as part of European mobility policy and as an essential contribution to integration. We have to exploit to the utmost all the options that the framework of the sixth VAT directive offers us and win over the media, for they – especially the public broadcasting institutions – are our partners. Thank you, Commissioner, for your observations. Take this report as a mandate and as a support. Do not let it gather dust in a drawer; it is too valuable to be eaten away by moths. No holes in the Budget are stopped if we cut back on art and culture; we are just the poorer thereby.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted for the budget but this is the last time I shall do so, for I consider Parliament's financial concern for pensioners and the elderly to be totally inadequate. Before I left for Strasbourg, the pensioners and elderly people of Bergamo said to me: ‘Christmas is coming and we in Bergamo celebrate both Christmas and the feast day of St Lucy. Will Mr Ferber prove to be a Father Christmas? Will Mrs Haug be a St Lucy for pensioners and elderly people?’ Sadly, the answer is no, for despite the fact that pensioners make up 30% of the population of the European Union, our budget does not set aside commensurate financial support to solve their problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Fiori report, even in its amended form, is a muddled and unhelpful contribution to the public discussion on stem cell research and other issues arising from developments in medical research. Decisions of this nature are largely a matter for Member States and the European Parliament must respect subsidiarity. The UK, for example, has quite rightly conducted its own debate on stem cell research and come to the conclusion that a tightly regulated research programme can eventually bring benefits to sufferers of highly disabling and painful conditions. The UK has successfully transposed the patenting directive, as all Member States should have done, and the distinction between inventions and discoveries is quite clearly understood. No review or attempt to change the directive is appropriate. For these reasons Members of the EPLP have voted against the Fiori report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, climate change, the heatwave, and ecological delinquency: all these phenomena have brought catastrophe this summer, all of them need to be combated at every level, and this report is just one of many ways of doing so. At the end of the day, the amounts at stake are modest and perhaps did not merit all of the political wrangling to reach this compromise. Nevertheless, the are satisfied with the compromise that has finally emerged. In our view, this report could have been settled long ago, but we are reassured because the programme will, at long last, be able to be launched. It could have started as early as 2002. We also wish to remind you that the measures in this programme are transitional ones and that the countries that have not invested in fire prevention would be well advised to do so before the review in 2006. We want the EU to find a happy medium at the next review, so as to strike a balance precisely between the two extremes: the countries of the North, which support subsidiarity in forest policy, and those in the South, which perhaps tend rather to knock on the door of the European treasury when problems arise. Finally, where the projects are concerned, we would ask that one of the factors in the selection process be biodiversity, because although it is true that it is difficult to explain what biodiversity is, we are very well aware of how important it is in the forestry environment. Reforestation, for example, should take the form of restoring the forest biodiversity that was damaged, if not totally destroyed, in the fires this summer.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my honourable colleague Mr Goebbels referred to the Feira agreement, of which he takes a dim view. Like him, I am unable to join in the euphoria and applause that greeted it in many quarters. I should just like to address two points. The first point is that we in Austria have had very gratifying experience of taxation at source in connection with capital-gains tax. It creates legal certainty for every individual saver and citizen. It seems to me, however, that a solution which will avoid a flight of capital from Europe is only achievable within the OECD framework and not through a collection of individually negotiated bilateral arrangements. Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the proposals on services provided by electronic means, which primarily relate, of course, to services downloaded from the Internet and to radio and television services. I believe we must ensure that no competitive disadvantages are incurred within Europe. Despite my fundamentally favourable response to the Commission proposal, I have to say that it seems premature and, in parts, underdeveloped, if one considers the many questions it leaves unanswered. Moreover, I very much doubt whether the present text will be able to find general acceptance. To my mind, it would be wiser to aim for a VAT regime in the OECD framework, even though in all probability it would only take the form of a code of conduct at that level. One last point is that the EU should not legislate in haste and should make every effort to strengthen e-commerce and to avoid undermining it.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Maes report should in fact be called the committee report. The rapporteur’s work is not evident. I do not think this report deserves to bear Mrs Maes’ name. In fact, all the credit for the amendments and the coherence and reliability of the report belongs to the committee. I have therefore voted for all the committee’s amendments (which are logical and appropriate) and I did not take part in the final vote. That would amount to giving credit to the rapporteur when in fact this is the work of the committee. 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s'. - Stevenson report (A5-0242/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner Barnier’s speech has confirmed how close the positions of the Commission and Parliament are. I listened carefully to the speech made by the representative of the Council, and it is to her that I would like to address a few brief comments. Mrs Lindh, the new IGC is the last thing to be talking about. The important issue is how to get there. You have called for maximum transparency in the debate now beginning and in the whole process described in the Nice Declaration, with a debate as close as possible to the citizens. Well, the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference before the Nice Summit demonstrated minimum transparency and maximum distance from the citizens. A new method is vital. There is a precedent, which is the Convention for the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That idea came from the Heads of State or Government, felicitously invented by them in Helsinki, so it is hard to understand why those same Heads of State or Government should now mistrust that method. It is not a problem of the name; it is a problem of substance. As well as the Commission, the European Parliament and the national parliaments should be involved not just in the debate but in drafting and drawing up the proposals as well. We should be writing the answers to the great questions on the future of the Union together. Mrs Lindh, we feel sure the Swedish Presidency will want to commit itself to dispelling the extraordinary suspicion meeting every proposal made by any of the groups in the European Parliament. We hope the resolution from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and hence from Parliament as a whole, will also help to make you more convinced than you are this morning and, in the meantime, we look forward to our meeting of 20 March with the representatives of the national parliaments of both Member States and candidate countries.

Political group: PSE