GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I share the general dissatisfaction of many Members in this Parliament regarding the outcome of Helsinki. I would particularly like to comment on the IGC, the charter and the venue. With regard to the IGC, Helsinki has only really decided to deal with the three leftovers. Fortunately, the door was also left open for additional items on the agenda. Concerning the third leftover, I would very specifically like to state that if it is to be decided to take more majority decisions, then this should obviously be done in line with this Parliament’s co-legislative power. Otherwise it does not make a great deal of sense. This is one of the key criteria which Parliament will apply to assess whether this component has been a success. A second point I would like to raise is that this has, of course, already been outlined to some extent and lifted to European level, but the Community measures necessary in this respect have not been taken at all. Quite the reverse, Mr Solana appears mainly to represent the Council and hardly seems to associate himself with the Commission and even less so with this Parliament. I think that it is vital that we at least endeavour to bring some aspects of these new policies within the scope of Community decision making and legislation. I would also like to say a few words about the charter. This has not been mentioned as far as I am aware but surely I can assume that the charter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, will also form part of the Treaties. Otherwise these will also be empty words. Finally, Mr President, the majority of the Dutch delegation did not attend the official inauguration of this building this morning. We did this for a specific reason because we feel that the decision taken in Amsterdam to force us to come and meet here twelve times a year is wrong. We feel that the European Parliament needs one venue, where it must be possible to work efficiently. With all due respect for Strasbourg, we feel that this would benefit efficiency. As far as we are concerned, the new Treaty should revise this section in that Treaty. At the moment, EUR 120 million is wasted annually on travelling up and down, but, more than anything, a lot of time is wasted by the MEPs. We do not have enough time to do a good job here. I feel that having these two venues was the wrong decision taken at Amsterdam, which should be rectified by the Paris Treaty. This is why we were not present this morning.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, just before the formal sitting you interrupted this vote very suddenly. It rather surprised me, and I am sure many other Members of the House, who during the formal sitting expressed their surprise at the way in which the vote was interrupted. We have just seen the first vote after the formal sitting fail to secure a qualified majority by only a handful of votes. Does that not demonstrate what we were talking about and the point Mrs Roth-Behrendt has raised? When we have qualified majority votes they should not be interrupted in any way by the formal sitting. There were eight votes to go. I can inform you, on the basis of my experience, that you could have completed that in three minutes. It is ridiculous that we are now proceeding with qualified majority votes when Members have not been given a reasonable amount of time to come back into the Chamber. I hope you could address that issue, Mr President. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, today’s debate concerns the major challenge at the turn of the millennium: to unite Europe in order to create peace and security, together with social, economic and environmental development. Unfortunately, these sentiments have had to yield to technical arguments in the course of the negotiations. The requirement for becoming an EU Member State is that of complying with the basic Copenhagen criteria. Negotiations must, in the first place, be aimed at easing the way to accession by the candidate countries. Naturally, they must comply with EU legislation, but I think it is sometimes rather hard to say that these countries must do this from day one. There are Member States of the European Union which have not in actual fact complied with everything, in spite of their having been Member States from the beginning. This debate has been going on in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. It is being said in certain quarters that a country must meet the requirements before it becomes a Member State. I think it is important to note that the condition of the environment will not improve as a result of these countries staying outside a little longer. Instead, we ought to try to help them as much as possible and as early as possible, as well as perhaps opting to accept rules that specify rather longer transitional periods. In this context, it is a question of rousing public opinion in favour of enlargement. We cannot afford to lose more of the momentum that existed at the beginning of the Nineties. We have already lost quite a lot of this. I believe it is a matter of urgency that those of us in this Chamber, in the Commission and in positions of national leadership should take responsibility. We must no longer hide behind democratic considerations and say that we must listen to public opinion. It is time to lead European opinion in the right direction. It has more to do with political objectives and political will than with technical solutions. We must explain this to people in the candidate countries and especially in our own Member States if the enlargement process is to be successful. And there is no time to waste.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Europe and the United States of America have long been striving to achieve considerable influence over developments in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. That influence often produces results quite different from those that had been expected. Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq owed their survival not so long ago to support from the West against others. In Iran, too, attempts were made for a long time to keep allies in power when their position was contested. Fifty years ago, the Mossadeq government was ousted as it was considered that it was too left-wing and that it could conceivably have entered into cooperation with Iran’s neighbours to the north, which were still part of the Soviet Union. An authoritarian ruler, the Shah, returned to power, but he proceeded to make ever more enemies in his own country on account of his lust for power and his neglect of his people. Whilst left-wing nationalism and socialism had no opportunity to constitute an alternative, a medieval variant of Islam was given renewed opportunities to organise popular resistance. Twenty-five years ago, a popular uprising put an end to a regime that had always sought military and economic cooperation with the West. The outside world has never trusted the new authorities. Following a few years of great enthusiasm, social policy and democratic experiments, this regime, too, incurred hatred within the country. The sizeable younger generation wants an end to the exclusion of politicians whose views differ from those of the conservative clergy, to restrictive rules for women, to the expulsion of students, and to the frequent hanging, stoning or amputation of body parts of those who do not fit into the world view of the authorities. Many people have fled the tyranny, often to Europe. Nevertheless, in recent years, Europe, motivated by economic interests, has been making overtures to this regime. The United States was hesitant, but seemed to be doing the same after Iran suffered the earthquake in Bam and showed readiness to have its nuclear projects inspected. In 2002, a part of the opposition standing up for the rights and freedoms that we take for granted in Europe was placed on a list of terrorist organisations. That increased the confidence of the real authorities in stopping earlier initiatives for democratisation and normalisation. Excluding the most critical candidates reversed the political composition of the parliament from the outset, turning the large majority into a small minority. My group hopes that Europe will learn from this and take the side of the Iranian people and their resistance organisations from now on.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have had two opportunities to visit Burma since I became a Member of this House. On the first occasion I carried a letter from President Klaus Hänsch informing Aung San Suu Kyi of the award of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to her. Khin Nyunt, the current Prime Minister, played a central role in ensuring I did not have the opportunity to deliver that letter in person. On the second occasion I was able to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi clandestinely. On that occasion my colleagues and I were able to obtain her clear support for sanctions against the military regime in Burma. I hope the Council and the Commission recognise that is the view of the National League for Democracy. 30 August marked three months of detention at the end of 13 years of open prison for Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy. The State Peace and Development Council – the former SLORC – has harassed the people of Burma, the National League for Democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi. The last time she was visited was in July. On 31 August the United States reported she was on hunger strike. The regime denies that. If that is the case, the absolute minimum the authorities can do is to enable the international community to reassure itself of her wellbeing. As for free and fair elections, the problem in Burma is not free and fair elections – those took place 13 years ago – but that the military regime is not prepared to accept the will of the Burmese people. We welcome the fact that ASEAN started to get involved in this process at its ministerial meeting in June. We welcome the pressure they put on Burma and note that the current military regime has refused to allow them to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi. We demand her immediate release and that of all political prisoners, which would be a major step towards the restoration of democracy. We call on the Council and the Commission to show their readiness, in collaboration with the United States, to help facilitate the national reconciliation process in Burma. In the meantime, we ask the Council to introduce tough further measures targeted against the regime, its members and their interests. They should be imposing smart sanctions that hurt those people in power. We call on the Council and Member States to ask the United Nations Security Council to urgently address the situation in Burma.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Sterckx’s report takes an important stand on the maritime environment. With effective action we will protect waters in which people bathe, safeguard the supply of clean fish to eat, and improve maritime ecology, especially in enclosed sea areas. Oil from ships is very dangerous in many ways and for that reason pollution offences must be dealt with firmly and by making those who contribute to them accountable. The committee has reached an excellent conclusion, which Mr Sterckx’s amendments make more specific. There is one point I nevertheless cannot support as it stands: the proposal for a common coastguard goes just a bit too far. As the coastguard also has many other responsibilities, this should be considered in the wider context. Mr Poignant has done some good work with regard to his own report. There is just one detail in it, however, that should be addressed. I too am in favour of ships displaying the emblem of the European Union. The amendment to display the emblem on national flags is problematic, however, as the rapporteur has also said himself. It would require a debate on flag legislation in the Member States. If this amendment is dropped, it will be possible to bring this whole issue to a swift conclusion.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to start by expressing my interest in this report and to underscore its excellence. Now we have to move on to practical work and I have two topical points to make. As regards women, since women are participants in history, they must now become players in the peace process. I am one of the ten women MEPs which went as a delegation to the Middle East two weeks ago, so it is topical – Mrs Morgantini will be able to fill you in on the details – not only so that women would be present in the peace process, but also so that there would be a European policy and that we women would support a European policy to promote peace in the Middle East. We really need to be practical. The second point concerns, not the female peacemakers, but the victims of war. In two weeks’ time, there will be a tribunal in Tokyo organised by NGOs. This attempt at a tribunal to denounce what ‘comfort women’ were made to do during the Second World War will take place in December 2000. I call on this Parliament to support it. This point is very important because this tribunal also wants to act as a pioneer and to be the first to raise the question of the crimes against humanity committed against women. Comfort women, mostly from Korea, were raped and duped into becoming sexual slaves during the Second World War by Japan, which does not want to acknowledge this crime. They were held prisoner. There is now a film and witness statements which will be presented to this tribunal. I hope, Mrs Theorin, that we will take an initiative on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities to support this action with a view to recognising and making reparations for this crime against humanity perpetrated against women.

Political group: GUE-NGL
With this rail package the European Commission is proposing a new version of Directive 91/440, which seeks to increase the liberalisation of rail services, in particular for freight. The amendments of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism broadened its scope to include the liberalisation of passenger services as well. I will vote against both these measures. We should ask why we are speeding up the liberalisation process when the 1991 directive has only just been revised. We should ask why we are reconsidering an agreement, a balanced agreement, reached with some difficulty just over a year ago. The Member States have not even finished the transposition of the revised directive of 2001. This means that we are moving ahead with liberalisation, with no going back, before we have even assessed the effects of the beginning of the process. It is simplistic to assert that the main reason why rail has become less competitive than road transport for freight is because the sector has not been liberalised. We did not have to liberalise rail passenger services to achieve cooperation between national operators in the case of Thalys. What works for passenger services could be applied to and developed for freight services. The will must be there though, and European and national investment at the ready. Let us go for rail rather than for lorries! (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with warm thanks to Mr Vander Taelen for this report, but also for the commitment he has demonstrated in his Parliamentary work. He is a true advocate for European film. Even if he is lost to Parliament, he will be our gain as a partner among the experts. I think we will continue to work very well together. I am, though, also grateful to the Commission for the report it has submitted, which gives us the opportunity to draw up an interim balance sheet. After a good three years' work by Parliament and the Commission, where do we stand? In my view, this interim balance sheet shows one thing, namely that the European film industry is strong when we work together – Parliament, Commission, and Council, laborious though that sometimes is, with the professionals. The balance sheet for the past three years proves that we have achieved important things. Let me address just three of them. Firstly, the proportion of films other than of national European origin shown in European Union cinemas has increased by 21% over the past year. That means that our media programme has made a quite substantial contribution to achieving this important objective. Secondly, thanks to the initiative by Commissioner Reding and Parliament, the European Investment Bank has launched a fund to make available for audio-visual works urgently needed risk capital which totals EUR 400 million in this year alone. This is an important step in the right direction. Thirdly, the Commission has examined competition law with reference to the promotion of films by Member States and acknowledged that all of them do so in a legitimate way, so we have gained a good deal more security for European film. We cannot, however, rest on these laurels. This report highlights the most pressing problems that we have to deal with – and at EU level – over the coming years. We must also deal with them through initiatives on the part of the Member States. It is for that that I appeal to the Council, which insists on subsidiarity. I have listed only three points. We need to move over to qualified majority voting to have an efficient working basis under Article 151 of the Treaties. We need pilot projects for our digital heritage, and subsidy law needs to have proper provisions for the future of European film. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The Autonomous Community of Aragon has a population of around 1 200 000 – 44.8 per square kilometre. However, the province of Teruel, one of its three provinces, only has an average of 9.3 inhabitants per square metre, as it only has 140 000 inhabitants spread over 14 785 square kilometres at more than one thousand metres above sea level. This uneven demographic distribution, which is distorted by the large concentration of the population in the capital, Zaragoza, has led to it being excluded from the Objective 1 regions. The province, which has three power stations in operation, is also undergoing a considerable crisis resulting from its mines being shut down. The regional government considers that including it in the European high-speed train routes and more specifically in the route for the high-speed train from Madrid to Levante, would bring it closer to the axis of the Mediterranean basin, considerably helping its development and its recovery from the shortfall that has accumulated in recent decades in terms of communications. I ask the Council and Parliament to take into account this situation and the damaging effects of geographical isolation and depopulation that are taking place in this province.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this IGC will be supported by two parallel processes: the brave new world of a European defence policy and the defining of European citizenship within the drafting of the charter. I trust that these separate but closely related processes will galvanise the IGC, just as the drive towards the single currency stimulated the Maastricht conference. We certainly need stirring up. At present, despite the good work of the rapporteurs, Parliament’s draft position is in danger of being more conservative than the Commission’s, and the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party has tabled various amendments to seek to sharpen the focus of the report and to speed up the development of a parliamentary Europe. Firstly, we want a real process of conciliation between Parliament, the Commission and the Council in preparing the IGC. Secondly, we wish to change the Treaty revision procedure in those areas where power is already transferred to the European level. It is crazy for us to be obliged to undergo this ponderous and protracted Treaty revision procedure when we wish merely to reform a common policy. It is also wrong for Parliament to be excluded from that process. Thirdly, we wish to improve access of the citizen to the European Court so that the citizen will be a privileged litigant with ourselves, Member States and companies. Fourthly, we want a further look at the flexibility clauses so that certain Member States are able in practice to deepen their relationship without threatening the acquis. I commend the Liberal proposals to Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
I have voted against this report. The reason for my having done so is that the report quotes Article 95 of the Treaty as a legal basis, involving majority decision-making in the Council and codecision making for the European Parliament, and this in spite of the fact that Article 95 states that it does not cover ‘fiscal provisions’. What, therefore, we have here is something so crucially a matter of principle as a reorganisation of the way in which tax issues are dealt with, involving an abandonment of intergovernmental cooperation with its demands for unanimity in accordance with Article 93 of the Treaty. I cannot support the Commission’s view that the report only concerns administrative cooperation and that the proposal would not have any fiscal consequences because it does not directly relate to tax collection. In the past, the Council has always rejected this position, and it changed the legal base to Articles 93 and 94, which only require that Parliament should be consulted. The Swedish fully support the Council’s approach. We believe that tax issues should not be decided by majority decision in the Council and by codecision in Parliament. Our clear position is that, in the future too, unanimity shall be required in connection with decisions on taxes, and this in accordance with Article 93 of the Treaty. Report Moreira da Silva (A5-0025/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE