GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The European Heads of Government in Thessaloniki spoke almost continually of the need for speaking with one voice. That is what they all want, as long as that voice is their own. If they do not let go of this attitude, little will change, despite the Convention and despite Mr Solana’s interesting document. There is little one can say in the way of criticism about his analysis, but therein lies at the same time its weakness. The report speaks about what unites us but is silent about what divides us, and that, in practice, is precisely the problem with 25 Member States. The threats in an enlarged Union do not only lie beyond Europe’s borders but also within them. We can see eye to eye with Mr Solana at the abstract level, but God forbid that this should become a little more concrete. I fear, above all, an internal rift about the attitude with regard to America’s role in the world, and hence about how to tackle the major breeding grounds of conflict. Mr Solana is right to say that an effective European Union could have a considerable impact, one that is conducive to a fair, safe and multilateral world. We must develop our own security policy, but we have not managed to do this to date, unfortunately. The Iraq crisis was not only about Iraq, but also about a new distribution of power in the world and inside the European Union. Since the fall of the wall, external policy in the European Union has been re-nationalised. Heads of Government, especially those of major Member States, seek to compensate for the loss of national sovereignty and identity in many areas by raising their own national profile in the area of foreign policy. Unfortunately, the Convention bears out current practice by maintaining the rule of consensus. Even the voice of a European super-Minister for Foreign Affairs can only be heard when the cacophony of his national colleagues has fallen silent.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, obviously the best way to avoid the threat of radioactive pollution is to do without nuclear installations entirely. However, given that the submarine exists and is facing repairs after having undergone an extensive refit which finished just over a year ago, it is obvious that a number of important issues have been raised for the Union, not least within the context of the development of a common foreign and security policy. Setting aside the operational purpose of the Tireless being in the Mediterranean when the leak in the pipe work of the reactor cooling system was discovered, let us look at some of the issues. What duty of care and information is owed to a neighbouring Member State when such an incident occurs? Do we have the effective protocols in place? Should there not be a principle of access to information and the supply of information for populations potentially at risk, whether in one Member State or across borders? It is no longer sufficient for an educated public to simply be reassured that all is well. They want to know on what the information is based and the nuclear and military industries have a history of paternalistic reassurance which means it is not surprising if they are not believed. Information on this has eventually been forthcoming and independent assessment permitted, but that has been forced as a result of public intervention and the actions of the Governor of Gibraltar rather than of a feeling of responsibility due. How are our governments to cope with their wider responsibilities in this new European architecture and the development of a common foreign and security policy? Do we actually have the necessary instruments, if we are being told that Euratom is not enough? Are military matters going to take precedence over our responsibility to our common environment and the threats to the health of our citizens? I would be very interested in the Commission's perspective on that particular point.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, now that we have made all these changes, I am sure your services will tell you that the text has become rather incoherent in terms of the text and its intention. Given the preparation of the Commission green paper on the European public prosecutor, the run-up to the IGC in 2004 and the fact that several committees of this House were not consulted, I would ask that this report be referred back to committee.

Political group: PPE-DE
On this topic the interests of industry continue to clash with those of the consumer and the environment. Most companies no longer oppose the idea that protecting consumers against unsafe products is desirable. In the single European market they are prepared to withdraw products that damage their good reputation. On the other hand, when it is a matter of concrete measures by government, they are quick to complain that these restrict their freedom excessively, and exert pressure on Parliament to reject them. Initially the Commission quite rightly claimed the right to decree a complete export ban on dangerous products. It is madness that companies based in our countries should try to earn money from products that we consider unsafe for European consumers. The Council seriously curbed those powers, probably under pressure from protesting companies who lobby their own national governments to protect the country’s exports. I support the rapporteur in her aim of maintaining those powers and in addition of taking more safety measures before 2003. It is reprehensible that good decisions by Parliament require 314 at second reading and as a result can often not be maintained in the face of opposition by the Council.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too would like to convey my thanks to the rapporteur. Her report has looked at both the possibilities and the challenges of the developing service sector. It is a highly complex area, not least because there is a divide between services that are geographically fixed, either owing to where the clientele is or where the resources are, and those that are far more moveable. One of the future challenges concerns the way in which those services do not necessarily move within one Member State or across borders, but indeed out of the European Union altogether. This type of mobility, which we might not have sought quite so anxiously, will be a future challenge for us. I am very pleased about the attention paid to women in this report. As the rapporteur pointed out in the report, women are overwhelmingly employed in the service sector. Indeed certain jobs are very heavily gendered, particularly in the public and care services. Many of these sectors also have a significant number of migrant, black and ethnic minority workers, so they are important in terms of integration and social inclusion. We welcome the emphasis placed on the specific training needs required if we are going to provide quality employment. However, we need to look very carefully at how we avoid this huge divide that currently exists in the services sector between high value, highly-paid jobs and those which are poorly paid under intense cost pressure; how we allow people in those sectors to develop their talents and to find mobility is going to be extremely important.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have a question for the Commissioner. In order to combat doping, there is one thing which we must do as a European Union. This is to fight against the over-commercialisation of sport which has led to a threefold increase in competitions. This is the reason for all the doping. While the Tour de France and the Giro d’Italia are as long as they are, and there are three matches per week for professional football teams, drugs will be used. While sport and the number of competitions are left unregulated, drugs will be used. If we do not do our duty by preparing a European directive on the protection of sportspeople, including professionals, we will not be tackling the root causes of doping. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have voted against the resolution on Cuba, not because I disagree with what is said in it about the situation in Cuba, but because I disagree with what is not said. I feel that it is intellectually and politically unjustifiable to assess Cuba’s position without considering the unremitting aggression instigated by the United States and endured by the island for the last 40 years. That aggression has been made manifest in all kinds of acts, including terrorist acts, which have been condemned by the international community. This policy of aggression has intensified recently, giving rise to justifiable concerns on the part of the Cuban authorities, especially now that pre-emptive war has risen to the status of a White House doctrine and the invasion of Iraq has taken place. The threat of virtual war, endured by Cuba for so many years, has thus grown into the threat of real war. We might criticise some of the reactions to this threat — we have done so — but that does not mean we should not try to understand them. The Cubans are convinced of two things, and I agree with them: the first is that the European Union treats Cuba differently from any other country in the same economic circumstances as Cuba, and even from any other country with a similar regime to Cuba. The Cubans are also convinced, as I am, that this discriminatory policy is not a matter of coincidence. Rather, it is encouraged by the United States. I believe it is essential to rethink our policy towards Cuba, with the immediate aim of regaining credibility and trust among all the Cubans with whom we have dealings. That does not mean we should hide our worries, our criticisms and our hopes of seeing the Cuban people progress. It does, however, mean that we should express those thoughts with the same respect, independence and coherence we show other countries, from Israel to Morocco, Russia to Latvia, Argentina to Guatemala, and even from China to the United States. Only if the European Union restores trust and credibility, shows understanding and solidarity, will it have the necessary influence to help things get better in and with Cuba. Resolutions like this one do nothing to help us in that task of restoring credibility and trust, either in Cuba itself or in the rest of the developing world, for which Cuba is still an important point of reference.

Political group: PSE
Mr President unspecified allegations of misconduct made about me and about some of my colleagues are appearing in the German press. This is something we have already discussed in this House. Unfortunately, it is not my work to which these reports refer; instead, there are only allegations to the effect that there is something objectionable about my behaviour, but as I am unable to ascertain what I am being accused of, I ask you, Mr President, to investigate further. It is also stated in the German media that you are to meet a certain Member this week and that the Member in question will then hand over certain lists to you. If this is the case, Mr President, I ask you to find out at once whether there is anything of which my colleagues or I might be accused. If there is, then I ask that you forward all the documents, at once, to the European Court of Justice or to the Court of Auditors and to OLAF. It would of course be good of you to inform those against whom the media are making what are really very nasty, dirty and unpleasant accusations, of what precisely they are being accused – that is, of whether they have been bad at their jobs or have broken the law. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I fully endorse this report, which calls for a revitalisation of European youth policy. Whilst young people have not been entirely marginalised in the project of European integration, there has not been enough sustained emphasis on their importance for the future of Europe. Indeed, the future of European integration depends upon the interest and support of the next generation, and since war is not at the forefront of young people's minds – and will no longer act as a catalyst for integration – it is vital that we include them now. A stronger European youth policy can help to bolster and reinforce measures taken at national level to deal with universal problems such as drugs and alcohol. Finally, since all Member States face the lamentable situation of increasing voter apathy – particularly amongst the young – the call for more young political engagement is most welcome. It is more useful to look for a pan-EU solution to this problem than for Member States to seek a solution individually. Randzio-Plath report (A5-0146/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to touch on a few points in the short time I have available. Mr Daems, you quite rightly pointed out that you have achieved a great deal in the Council and you also referred to the flexibility on the part of the Council that this involved. You said that we have reached a good compromise. I agree, and I think that many of my colleagues in my group will see it the same way. It is an acceptable compromise. There are a good many points on which further negotiation is needed. Mr van Velzen hit the right note. We will have to carry on negotiating and fighting to achieve a common internal market, because this is just one step and further work will be needed. I believe that we in this House have one particular problem with this, and I have already heard a lot of people saying that it is difficult to have an informal trialogue as part of the second reading. That requires a great deal of work and needs a huge investment of time given all the linguistic difficulties involved. The whole package that we have before us is very complicated and needs a great deal of detailed work. I think that we here in Parliament – and I am addressing this comment more to Parliament than to the Commission and the Council, although it indirectly affects them too of course – will have to make a greater investment in ensuring that we have whatever support is required to tackle such a complex task from a political point of view. This will still not guarantee completion of the internal market. It is right that in future the Commission will have more power and scope for action. We have not used the word ‘veto’. That is probably very clever in political terms, but nevertheless it is something along those lines. Nevertheless, by means of cooperation and consultation, the national regulatory authorities have the power to ensure that they can take appropriate action to influence their national markets. There is an interesting definition of transnational markets. Nevertheless, there are two further problems to which previous speakers have referred regarding the interoperability of standards. I believe that the proposal does not go far enough in this respect. I cannot understand our countries, why they are not in favour of interoperability in the area of standards. I hope that something more will emerge in this field. There is also still a great deal more to be achieved, via consultation with Parliament, as regards Parliament's participation concerning technical measures, and that includes, in particular, Mrs Niebler's report, for which I am shadow rapporteur. I would simply venture to point out that Mr von Wogau will, I hope, be bringing forward an interesting report next year dealing more fully with the issue of Parliament's participation in such consultation processes. Once more, we have until Wednesday to consider things further, and the Council and the Commission have a further opportunity to comment on these points. I would be delighted if they would do that today.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, judging from the correspondence which I have seen so far, and according to the letters which you had delivered to Members' post boxes today, it is quite apparent that you, or the head of your private office, I am not yet entirely sure which – had doubts as to whether the application for the removal of the immunity of Mr Berlusconi and Mr Dell'Utri, transmitted to this House via the Spanish Supreme Court, was submitted in a proper and correct legal form. The first question which I would like to put to you is this: why did you not consult this House's Legal Service about your doubts as to the application's legality or notify Parliament of your concerns? In my opinion, the normal procedure in doubtful cases would be to consult this House's Legal Service, which, after all, is available to you in your capacity as President. Secondly, you opted instead to consult the Spanish Embassy or Spain's EU representation about your doubts concerning the application's legality. You apparently referred the matter back to Spain's representation. So my second question to you is this: why did you allow more than seven months to elapse without demanding a response to your enquiry? If I have understood the sequence of events correctly, you referred the matter to Spain's permanent representation in August 2000. You apparently delayed until mid-February before requesting a response. That is an awful lot of months! Why did you wait so long, and what, in your view, were the reasons for the delay? My third question is this: under the present circumstances, would you now be prepared to involve the relevant committee of this House – in this case, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which deals with the issue of immunity – and transfer the responsibility for this matter to that Committee, or do you intend to retain this competence yourself? Thank you very much. I look forward to your response.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, as someone who was born and bred in Ghent, I should first of all like to express my satisfaction at the peaceful process of the demonstrations during the European Council in Ghent. What went wrong in Gothenburg and Genoa did not in Ghent. That is undoubtedly linked to the changes since 11 September, but also to the sound preparation, the sensible approach by the police and certainly also to the open dialogue that has led to a different atmosphere. As Mr Verhofstadt has already underlined, the original intention of this informal summit was to prepare for the Laeken Declaration. The Fifteen defined the parameters and the timeframe for the convention. As the European Parliament, we should be able to recognise that this was a true tour de force. Six months ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable. Another positive development is the fact that the Union has taken a unanimous and firm stand in the fight against terrorism, has emphatically confirmed its solidarity with the US, but at the same time, has highlighted its own political role. Strictly speaking, Ghent has thus fulfilled the expectations. But the way in which European unanimity was brought about has once again exposed the cracks in the European edifice. Ghent has also painfully accentuated the fact that Nice’s two areas of tension, namely that between the large and small countries, and that between the intergovernmental and community approach, is still heavily mortgaging the European Union’s future. This applies first and foremost to the CFSP. The French President is right, strictly speaking, when he states that the European Union is not authorised to deal with military matters. However, the question is whether we are prepared at all to change this. The three largest Member States should realise that they cannot continue to be only half-committed to the cause. This ambiguity cannot remain concealed behind fine sounding final declarations in which attempts are made to keep up appearances of European unanimity. Let us hope that 11 September and the need to reform the institutions prior to enlargement will encourage Member State governments to look beyond their own national policies and return to the roots of the European Union, namely to promote peace and security in Europe and in the world by intense cooperation between the Fifteen, rather than just three, Member States. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I am a feminist. For me, feminism is about seeing and acknowledging the fact that women often have a subordinate role in society and being prepared to do something about this. In Europe, what the EU does to make society more equal is very important. I remember very well what happened when, as Sweden’s new prime minister in 1994, Ingvar Carlsson appointed his government, and half of its members were women. After he had formed his government in that particular way, it was impossible for Sweden’s political parties to do anything other than ensure that more women were given substantial political responsibilities. For us Social Democrats, it became obvious that every other member of our political assemblies should be a woman. The same thing must happen in the EU. Women and men must be equal. When a new Parliament is appointed, it must be characterised by gender equality. When a new Commission is appointed, it must also be characterised by gender equality. The same should apply in all parts of the European Union. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, women and men must obviously be treated equally. We have the same rights and obligations. Secondly, it is incredibly important what signals the EU sends out. Equal opportunities for women and men are one such signal that must be sent out from ourselves to all actors in society.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am taking the floor to point out to you a problem concerning compliance with the Rules of Procedure in the verbatim report of 30 January 2003, in the debate on world hunger and the elimination of barriers to trade with the poorest countries. On page 15 of the verbatim report there is a written declaration by Mr Van Hecke of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, presented pursuant to Rule 120(7). This declaration is 357 words long, whereas the Rules of Procedure stipulate, and I quote: ‘Members who have not spoken in a debate may, at most once per part-session, hand in a written statement of not more than 200 words that shall be appended to the verbatim report of the debate’. Whereas I myself made the effort to comply with the Rules of Procedure on this point in my written declaration on the same debate, and one of my previous written declarations was abbreviated precisely on the basis of this Rule, I am surprised and I wonder whether there might be two sets of checks and balances in this House with regard to the application of the Rules of Procedure. May I ask for the Rules of Procedure to be applied in this case?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my question will be very brief. I would like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council whether, according to his information, there used to be around 3 500 international adoptions every year in Romania, and the same number of children living in orphanages? If there are now at least 50 000 children in orphanages, we will not be able to resolve this problem using this system. Is the Romanian Government truly exempt, because of its duty to eradicate corruption, from a basic principle of the European Union, which is the non-retroactivity of current laws, under which adoptions have hitherto been processed?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, would you allow me the luxury of a point of order before I address Fiori. Listening to my esteemed colleague on my left here, I think there might be a case for revising the rules on explanations of vote, whereby any of us are allowed one oral and as many written as we like in any one plenary session and I say that, really, to make business as efficient as possible. Perhaps, Madam President, you could bring my views to wherever they should go for consideration on that point. It would speed proceedings up for yourselves and the interpreters.

Political group: PPE-DE