GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Aaltonen for her wonderful work, approved unanimously in the Committee on Petitions. I hope it will also be approved unanimously in this House. It is important that we deal with these health problems, in response to this citizen’s petition, relating to the discriminatory treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis. We are aware that many chronic long-term illnesses do not receive satisfactory attention, and the treatment offered to these people is currently insufficient. This report contains proposals for resolving the situation of people suffering from multiple sclerosis in all the member countries, not only therapeutically, but also by proposing effective services to deal with the other needs suffered by these patients, as well as their integration into society, applying effective therapies and treatments which modify their illness. It provides these patients with useful information and support, things which are very important to them. I will illustrate what I have said by means of an example. In the Spanish State there are 40 000 people suffering from multiple sclerosis. Some are as courageous and constant as Mrs Louise McVay, and I would give the example of Martí i Pol, a Catalan writer who died recently and managed to overcome and live with his illness thanks to the solidarity and help of everybody around him, not just family, but the whole of society in general, his people and his region. It is an absolute priority to dedicate funds to research programmes aimed at finding a solution to this disease, in all the Member States. The Group supports the report in its entirety, as well as those amendments which we believe will provide solutions for alleviating this disease. Furthermore, I would like to stress the importance of the Committee on Petitions, which maintains relations with the citizens and makes it possible, by means of their petitions, in some cases to produce reports like this one aimed at improving aspects of their daily lives. I would like once again to express my gratitude for this valuable report, which we hope will have effective results in the Member States, by means of the proposals which the Commission will undoubtedly make. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why did my group demand this afternoon's debate on the Stability and Growth Pact? The reason given was that we were disturbed by certain utterances we have heard emanating from the ranks of governments in the past weeks and months. The statements made by Mr Eichel, Mr Jospin, Mr Fabius, and other things that were said, all went along the same lines. For a start, they asserted that it was necessary in the present situation to soften the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact. That was the first demand. The second was that the Heads of State and of Government must be accorded the right to prescribe annual stability objectives to the European Central Bank. We take the view that both these proposals are extraordinarily dangerous, for the Stability and Growth Pact and the independence of the European Central Bank are the twin pillars on which rests the European Union's monetary system. These pillars must not be shaken. My group will always speak up in favour of maintaining the independent European Central Bank and the Stability and Growth Pact in their present forms. Let us turn now to the resolutions on the table before us. Jointly with the Group of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party, we have submitted a motion for a resolution. We negotiated with the Group of the , which stated that it was unable to agree to our resolution. What, though, is so bad about our resolution? It states that the Stability and Growth Pact should, in quite simple words, be 'retained'. Why can they not agree to that? Then they said: We want to put its principles fully into practice. Why not just agree to it then? We need measures against money laundering. You spoke about that, Commissioner. We need measures to destroy the financial background for terrorist acts. Why not agree to that? We must also be consistent in reducing monopolies in order to strengthen the competitiveness of our European economy. Why can they not agree to that? Now for the second question: what counter-proposal does the other side have to offer? They put forward essentially the same ones over and over again: that the European Central Bank should cut interest rates. Or, on the other hand, that the Stability and Growth Pact, or the Member States' budget policies, should be relaxed. That is the policy mix. That is the potion concocted by druids to cure all the ills of our economy at a stroke and without effort. It would be nice if things worked like that, my dear Christa! But in reality they do not. Take a look at Japan, where this policy was applied and where it does not work. Consider the stock exchanges in the United States today, where it can be seen that it does not work. Look at economic history, where we see from the past that it has never yet worked. So I would like to urge you to reject these demands and support our resolution. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this year too the Ombudsman’s annual report makes for inspiring reading. I think it is on the right lines, and it is very gratifying to read that the Ombudsman has obtained the documents he asked for. I hope this practice will rub off on the rest of the EU system, for that is the way it should be. Only through openness do we ensure that it is possible to combat fraud and irregularities and that politicians have a better image in the eyes of the population. We might well have had more use for the Ombudsman in relation to a case in Britain in which Lloyd's cheated thousands of people, an event which led to a long list of tragedies in the form of suicides and much else besides. We see a lack of openness in the British government, the Council and the Commission, and it would be useful if the Ombudsman could give us further help on this issue. I believe that the Committee on Petitions should have greater powers. It is perhaps one of the most important committees, for it is here that the ordinary person within the EU system can come to raise matters. It is therefore also incredibly important that there should be a powerful committee which can help him when he does just that. I should like to say that when I heard my fellow MEP’s, Mr Krarup’s, speech, I was very surprised indeed. Naturally, there were the snide remarks that are bound to come from an opponent but, knowing Mr Krarup as I do, what we have here is proof that he loves this system and really thinks it is fantastically good. It is just that he does not really want to say so. I believe then that, somewhere along the line, even Mr Krarup will say that we need the EU.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I take good note of Commissioner Barnier’s statement and the commitment which the Commission is making. Please allow me to express, not a criticism, but surprise in relation to the unassailable legal basis. The Union Treaty, at that time signed by the twelve Heads of State and Government and ratified by all the parliaments of the Member States with the approval of the European Parliament, which recognises citizenship, is not, it appears, a sufficient legal basis. This surprises me because to be associated with a political party is a fundamental right for citizens and, while our citizenship is recognised, that right is not. We did not manage to have this included in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Commission is behaving gingerly and takes this approach: two stages, almost three stages, according to the Commissioner. I understand that the proposal relating to the tripartite dialogue and stemming from Article 308 is a provisional proposed legislative provision and the best laws, at least in my country, are provisional laws, which are the ones which have lasted the longest. This would allow us to end this current situation of a lack of legal status, and I take good note of this and I believe we should work in that direction. The second step is the amendment of the Treaties. I believe I can say that we all support it, but the important thing at the moment is, firstly, the existence of a public commitment by the Commission to exercise its right to initiative, a common will to consolidate a fundamental dimension for European citizenship and contribute immediately to the political parties beginning not only to exist in reality, but also to be legally recognised, because I believe that this is an important step towards the construction of European democracy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, of course, like all my fellow Members, I can only welcome your victory, which is obviously well deserved, since it has been gained through lengthy consideration and debate. I think that the greatest victories are those that are achieved gradually. Your victory, given the pace at which it was achieved, is certainly a great one. You have told us that your presidency will be neutral but not indifferent. Well, from your first remarks, I believe that you are going to keep your word, because I think that neutral is something that you will be – your track record speaks in your favour and I think that you will listen to everyone. But your presidency will not be indifferent, because you are a dedicated European. You immediately made reference to the flag hanging opposite us and behind you, Mr President, and it is true that this flag unites us in spite of our differences. And you emphasised these differences by speaking in a language which is not a working language but is an official language. There are so many languages in Europe that could become official languages when Europe is closer to its people. I think that you have illustrated this wonderfully. I would like to conclude by saying that I hope that your presidency will be conducted in a manner that reflects the tone of your first speech, in other words, determined and pleasant. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the European Union is expected to do something in the Middle East. It is already present there, far more so than in the past, thanks to the commitment of its High Representative. Now it must play an even more active part. The time has passed when it could confine itself to watching the drama unfold from its Mediterranean balcony seat. It must play an active part because as history has demonstrated, in politics and in war, merely to play a passive role is ignominious. If we are to have any prospect of being useful, we must act with absolute impartiality. That is the first difficulty in this exercise, since each of the camps expects first of all that we side with it against its enemy, following the old adage that my enemy's enemy is my friend, but my enemy's friend is my enemy. If we are to help break this vicious circle of bloodshed and revenge, here as elsewhere we do not have the right to be anyone's enemy. So what can we do? I sincerely believe that nobody will make peace in the Middle East unless the two parties are resolved to do so and unless the various proposals put forward in this Chamber just now, by Members as also by the Council and by the Commission, are taken into consideration. If, as we must continue to hope, the wish for peace exists, and only if it exists, then we must also support the idea of deploying an international observers' force, in which Europe could and should take part. Like my friend Mr Salafranca Sánchez Neyra and like Mrs Napoletano, I want to stress that point to our counterparts from the Knesset who are here today, because I know that at present Israel is profoundly opposed to the idea. The way to cool down a conflict as acute and heated as the one that continues to bathe the Holy Land in blood is to have impartial observers on the ground. Through their actions and their testimony they could prevent a new general conflagration from being sparked off by the growing number of incidents that are bound to occur when a real armistice is signed. Like my fellow Members, I continue to hope that we will finally see such an armistice one day.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have the same problem with the Lisi report concerning the conciliation on compensation and assistance to air passengers. What is regrettable is that, on Thursdays, Members leave during the vote, and that is a real problem. So, either these votes, which really are extremely important and require a qualified majority, are indeed transferred to Wednesday, or they take place on Thursday, but right at the beginning of the sitting, so that we do in fact have the quorum needed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the telecommunications companies proclaim that competition should regulate the market. But can we trust in competition as a regulator of the market? No, we cannot. Although telephone charges have gone down in many countries, not all charges have. For example, in Finland charges for local wired telephone calls have risen by a quarter in the last few years. In addition, it is impossible for consumers to discover what mobile phone calls cost to different companies’ networks or wired telephones. We live in a jungle, where the laws of the jungle determine prices. The lion’s share of profits are being grabbed by supranational operators whose objective it is to dominate the market. Unfortunately, the governments of certain Member States of the Union are like Tarzan, King of the Jungle, who has in his hands a limited natural resource – new frequencies. The central left governments of Germany and Britain have auctioned off mobile phone UMTS frequencies to telecommunications companies in such a way that a crisis is looming for the companies involved and many banks. The stock market bubble has now burst as far as that sort of thinking is concerned, based as it was on a belief in the power of information technology to work miracles. The auctions have sabotaged the e-Europe project. They have weakened democracy. They have caused telephone charges to go sky-high. They are an imposition on the free flow of information and data. Would all of this have been avoidable if there had been a framework directive on telecommunications at the disposal of the EU? I would like to think so, although it is not certain it would have. But now we have to try out a framework directive, and Mr Paasilinna has been engaged on an immense task in its preparation. He is calling for a thorough investigation into the financial effects of auctions. Our group supports this. However, it is difficult to agree with Mrs Niebler’s amendment to the framework directive. It is based on the values and interests of certain European monopolies and is at odds with a democratic information society.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Mastorakis and Mr Pomés Ruiz, for their excellent reports. Cohesion policy is a basic precondition for the existence and legitimacy of the EU as a whole. A mechanism is needed which will also boost prosperity in the most disadvantaged regions. Cohesion policy is founded on the Treaty on European Union. Both in the present Treaty and that being drafted by the European Convention regional and social cohesion is presented as a principle that runs through all policy areas. When the new Member States join the European Union, they will all be in need of structural development. The danger is that regional and structural policy funding with regard to the old Member States will decrease. Then these least favoured regions in terms of their economy would be having to pay more for enlargement than the regions that are economically the strongest, which, on the other hand, will benefit most from it. For that reason, funding for the former eligible areas must not be reduced. In Finland and Sweden in particular, there are sparsely populated, remote regions, the current Objective 1 areas, for which access to markets is difficult. That is why these regions should be considered very remote areas on a par with the Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores. A particular problem is the way the Structural Funds are currently administered, which is inefficient and bureaucratic. This is visible in the under utilisation of funds, which is catastrophic. In 2000, EUR 6.7 billion of appropriations remained unspent; in the following year the amount was EUR 8.7 billion, and in 2002 it was EUR 6.2 billion. Outstanding commitments now stand at more than EUR 90 billion, or almost the equivalent of the budget for three years. This jeopardises the credibility of this whole area of policy. Administration must be dramatically reformed and greatly simplified. The so-called n+2 rule, created to make administration more efficient, does not work, because the Commission accepts repeated advance payments as means of payment, even though the project itself should not even have been started. That is why this rule too should be revised.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, a fellow honourable Member has just drawn attention to an anti-Semitic incident. The issue of racism was heavily debated in Germany over the summer, and I would now like to tell you about several extremely disturbing incidents that have taken place there since the last part-session, in order to raise awareness of what is going on. Three cases in point: on 2 September, a fifty-year-old waiter of Chinese origin was beaten up and called a ‘foreign pig’. On 13 September, a homeless person was found dead. Two skinheads have admitted to beating him up. He had subsequently died from their kicks and punches. Thirdly, on 4 September, right-wing extremists beat up a person whose parents are of Tunisian origin. This happened in Kassel. I would ask that since we mourn other deaths here, could we not do the same for those whom we never knew, and especially those who were murdered for political, specifically racist, reasons? I would like to raise awareness about this issue in this House, particularly as we had a debate about it in Germany. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, when we learned a few months ago that thirteen Iranian Jews had been imprisoned a year earlier, we were concerned for their fate. At that time, in an effort to reassure us, the Iranian Government told us it was not a racist trial because many Moslems had also been arrested and indicted on the same charge along with the thirteen Jews. But the trial opening today only involves the Jews. They are being tried separately from the Moslems charged with them, which proves, if proof were needed, that this trial – which we are told is to be adjourned – is no genuine trial. You will remember, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, and it has been mentioned, that some Iranian Jews were arrested for spying for Israel a few years ago. They were put on trial for it and hanged. Who are the accused? We should point out that they include a cobbler, a cemetery caretaker, a boy who is not even sixteen yet, and two old men. It is hard to understand how these people are endangering Iranian democracy. What are they supposed to have done? No one really knows! We do not have the right to know what they are supposed to have done. A letter to a family in Israel may have been enough to set this case in motion. In a previous resolution and in repeated letters supported by the President, we asked to be allowed to visit the prisoners. That was refused. We then asked to meet the families who are not sworn to secrecy, as far as I know. That was also refused. We asked – in a unanimous resolution – to be able to attend the trial. Up to now that has been refused. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must recognise the immense risk run by these thirteen people and strenuously reiterate our requests to send observers to this trial and be given access to the evidence in the case. We must also make clear our intransigence on relations with Iran. I hope we are not going to wake up, some day soon, and find that these thirteen people have been executed because they were Jewish.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to express my total agreement with the speech that Mr Queiró has just made on this subject, and to introduce another element into the discussion. During the last part-session, in February, a debate was held on the situation in Angola and a resolution was adopted by this House. In response to this resolution, the Angolan Ambassador in Paris wrote a letter to the European Parliament, and in this letter, a copy of which I have here, he insinuated at a certain point that a fellow Member of this House, Mário Soares, has political, ideological and “other kinds” of links with the war criminal Jonas Savimbi. In addition to this letter, further statements were made, which are false, insulting and which attempt to undermine the dignity and honour of a fellow Member of this House, who has, in the past, been an excellent President of a Member State of the European Union. Mr President, we all have the right to express our opinions in this House and in a democracy. We may agree with something or we may not. What is unacceptable is that a state that maintains relations with the EU should be allowed to respond by attempting to undermine the dignity and honour of a fellow Member of this House. My question is, therefore, whether the President of the European Parliament has already responded to the Angolan Government through its Ambassador in Paris? If it has already responded, what was the tenor of its response? If it has not yet responded, it is crucial that this House is clear and unequivocal in repudiating the attitude of the Angolan Government towards our colleague, and therefore towards the European Parliament, an area of freedom and democracy in which we all have the right to express our opinion. (Applause)

Political group: PSE