GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
After eight years of heated debate, a solution to the ecopoints issue is, at last, on the horizon. Indeed, the conciliation conclusions must be welcomed as restoring the balance in a situation whereby an instrument is being applied in Austria that holds back HGVs, which can travel freely everywhere else, including in the Alpine regions of France and Italy, without being subject to environmental tolls. I repeat: including in the Alpine regions, and here, I am addressing the Austrian Member who talked as if the Alps were an exclusively Austrian concern. Yet our problems are the same as those of which Austria complains and the environmental damage is the same. We are all in favour of protecting our mountains and countries from an excessive amount of HGV traffic, but it is not by moving the cause of pollution elsewhere that the problem can be solved. Nor is it any consolation that the environmental damage is paid for by extremely high tolls, the effect of which is to bring transport companies, especially the smallest and weakest, to their knees. Indeed, the amount of damage does not change, irrespective of the tolls. I agree with Mr Lisi: this solution is the best possible compromise and it ought to satisfy Austria too. It may be, however, that Austria had become too used to the situation, or, perhaps, not used to it enough, depending on which way you look at it. What, then, should we do at this juncture? We need to start work resolutely on the trans-European networks, first and foremost the Brenner base tunnel and the high-speed four-track update of the Munich-Verona rail corridor, in order to provide a genuine rail alternative to road transport. However, we need to make things very clear to the companies managing intermodality. It is true that intermodality is currently being implemented in a fairly satisfactory way, but its prices, timetables and services need to be genuinely competitive and attractive – or rather, convincing – so as to draw all the traffic from the roads onto the railways.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the political pressure that preceded the elections and the flagrant manner in which President Mugabe encouraged the violence means that we are not talking now about free and proper elections, although we were sincerely convinced on polling day itself that we were witnessing a desire to hold an irreproachable election. Everything spoke of a genuine desire on the part of the people of Zimbabwe to build a democratic civil society. The events of Zimbabwe compel us, however, to consider the relationship between democracy and values, and this may be the right forum for that, as we refer to the EU as a society of values. At the same time we openly admit that the EU cannot dash about the world paternally handing out advice to others from on high. It is a matter of dialogue. That was what Pierre Schori, as leader of the EU delegation of election observers, also demonstrated admirably. Something happened in Zimbabwe that should make every politician consider how we can prevent the demoralising effects of power – among ourselves also. Why does a former hero of a nation, the father figure of a struggle for independence, now allow the use of violence simply to underpin his own authority? And what has happened to a person’s soul and sense of morality when he has the audacity to proclaim during the elections that the government will be staying in power, no matter what the result? The philosopher and theologian, Niebuhr, once said that a person’s sense of what is right makes democracy possible, but his inclinations in the opposite direction make democracy absolutely necessary. In other words: a person’s virtue makes democracy possible; on the other hand, his vices make it necessary. I think this is one of the truest remarks ever made about democracy. It follows that, in order to flourish, democracy needs its internal structures to be looked at critically and, indeed, has to be prepared to submit to criticism. That means that we are willing, in the name of democracy, to encourage people to take a critical stand as citizens. On the other hand, it requires transparency in decision making and the flow of information. Only in this way can democracy preserve its self-remedying nature. In Zimbabwe I also realised very clearly that we cannot speak of human rights without the recognition of human dignity. It is just empty talk unless it is committed to the unique value and integrity of the individual. At the same time, I would like to pay my respects to those thirty or more victims of violence who were to die whilst expressing their desire to struggle in favour of a free civil society.

Political group: PPE-DE
The UK delegation of the reserves its position on paragraph 35, which calls for Article 151 to be changed to operate under qualified majority rule. Notwithstanding this reservation the delegation supports the overall stance of the Vander Taelen report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, next Thursday at 3 p.m, I am going to meet Professor Alexis Valas and his students from the Robert Schumann University in the University of Strasbourg, who, having been informed of Mr Fatuzzo’s explanations of vote, have asked for a lesson on the subject. I will tell these students that I voted for the Damião report and called for precisely that for which they are going to ask me, namely for those who are exposed to asbestos in their workplaces to be authorised by Europe to work half a day only while being paid as if they were working full-time, with the cost of this being borne by all the other workers who have the good fortune to work in a healthier environment which does not put them at risk from serious illnesses such as asbestosis.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, immediately following the vote on the 2002 Budget I asked how exactly Budget line B3-306 had been voted on. My group's co-ordinator and I wrote you a letter asking for the vote to be re-scrutinised. We have as yet received no reply. I therefore wish to lodge an objection to the Minutes on this point in order to get the matter properly clarified. The background to this is that we had voted on a reserve – the amounts involved and the explanations of them. It was intended that we would vote on them together, with a separate vote only on one short passage in the explanations. Then, though, there were suddenly separate votes on the amounts and the explanations. That was not how it had been intended. I therefore ask that this be looked into, and wish to put on record my reservations about the Minutes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, the half-heartedness of the Commission alarms me and I would say that, perhaps, one suggestion should be taken on board: avoid the capitalist trap, be offensive and, if you will allow the expression, “be liberal”. I would like to ask the Commission if it can commit itself to a firm basis comprising three main points. Why not commit yourselves to humanist values and dare to say that we must recognise the fundamental social standards defined by the ILO? Why not require quality standards on a global level, and therefore demand the same rights and the same responsibilities of all economies and businesses? Why not argue for diversity on an international level and demand, for everyone, a cultural exception and an agricultural exception? Finally, a wish and, in any case, a will. I do not think it is good for the European Parliament to accept the possible position of the Commission and then leave it to the end of the round to pass judgement. We must always work alongside the Commission, but also see to it that the Parliament is not just a ratification Chamber, but may make its point of view count. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I just wanted to raise something briefly. A report by me on industrial associations has been put on this week’s agenda, without my knowledge, and, above all, also contrary to everything agreed by Parliament with the authorities here. I learned of this when someone from The Times in London phoned me about it. On being asked how this could come to pass, the Parliament office responsible stated that it had been done with the groups’ agreement. When I asked them, I was told it was the Parliamentary services that had done it. This does not show this House in a very favourable light. I now note – with gratitude, of course – that the report’s arrival will be subject to the rapporteur’s agreement, as certain groups are aware that it is the subject of important negotiations that are still in progress. In practice, though, it would have been nice for this to have been done a bit more transparently and efficiently.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission has presented a communication on reform of the sugar, tobacco and cotton sectors. I am bound make an initial observation. It is that yet again this debate has been characterised by blatant discrimination against traditional Mediterranean crops as regards reform of their production. Mr Jove Peres highlighted this earlier. Concerning the sugar sector, there is a document outlining a number of options. It is due to be discussed and worked on in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. A decision will then be taken in plenary. By contrast, the only chance of debating the implications of the communication for the other three Mediterranean crops will be following an oral question today. This will not even lead to a resolution in plenary. There does not appear to be any justification for such differences in formal procedures. Furthermore, discrimination and variable treatment are evident in the substance, not just in the formalities. Changes are in train within the common agricultural policy. Price support mechanisms are being phased out and replaced with others designed to support income. The Commission itself is on record as stating that this concludes the 1992 decoupling. Transitional periods of between 15 and 17 years are therefore involved. Nonetheless, immediate changes are demanded in these three sectors. This means that for cotton, olive oil and tobacco, there is to be a sudden change from aid linked directly to production to totally decoupled aid. There can be no justification for failure to provide an opportunity for us to discuss a suitable transitional period with the Commission. The employment generated in the sectors in question is of crucial importance. I refer not only to the jobs linked to cultivation of the crops, but also to jobs dependent on the processing industry, jobs in the service industries and in general to the wealth created in rural areas. Loss of production and winding up production in these sectors will have dramatic economic consequences. The result will be large-scale rural exodus. I therefore urge the Commission to be flexible. There must be an opportunity to discuss the various options contained in the proposals made. Impact assessments are needed too. I would remind the Commissioner that no impact assessment has yet been undertaken for the cotton sector. I also appeal to the Commission to be flexible when it comes to discussion of transitional adjustment periods appropriate for these sectors. Before I conclude, I should like to call on the Commissioner to provide a clear explanation of the importance of Community cotton production in the global market. I do so in my capacity as rapporteur for the cotton sector and in the wake of Cancun. The Union accounts for 0.5% of global cotton production. It does not grant any export refunds whatsoever. Imports are totally free. They are not subject to tariffs of any kind. Furthermore, 80% of the cotton used in the Union is imported.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to point out, as did the previous speaker, that a functioning internal market needs a single currency. Secondly, there is a rumour that needs to be dispelled right from the outset of this debate, to the effect that the external value of the euro has something to do with the prospect of Greece adopting the single currency. It is clear that the external value of the euro has nothing to do with this but everything to do with the lack of resolve shown by certain Member States when it comes to implementation of the necessary structural and liberalisation measures, and it can also be attributed to the fact that there are a number of differences – starting with taxation levels – in the ways that Europe and the United States structure their economies. Therefore, on behalf of my Group, I would like to congratulate Greece and acknowledge the efforts and progress it has made en route to membership of the Economic and Monetary Union. Further to what I have already said about the convergence report, we are very much in favour of Greece joining the Economic and Monetary Union. This clear endorsement is not diminished in any way when, so as to remain true to our firm belief in a strong euro, sustainability, price stability, and equal treatment of all countries, we inevitably make reference to the need for Greece to keep up the good work, and encourage it to do so, and also point out that a great deal still remains to be done in Greece before sustainable price stability and a balanced low-debt state sector are achieved. I say this because whilst we recognise that there has been a sharp decline in the rate of inflation, this can be attributed in part to transient factors. It is therefore absolutely essential for Greece to step up its efforts to support sustainable price stability. I say this because substantial structural reform and continuous budgetary surpluses are required under the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact, so as to gradually reduce the public debt ratio to 60%. We are in favour of Greek membership, but would call upon and encourage Greece to continue to implement the necessary measures and to guarantee sustainability in the spirit of the Stability Pact. On a final note though, I would also like to appeal to Sweden to at last discharge its political duties, now that it has fulfilled many of the criteria. This is because the Swedish government is currently dragging its heels over joining stage 2 of EMU and amending the bank of issue law, which would guarantee the independence of the ECB when a new member joins. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece followed your proposal for one minute’s silence in memory of the seven Spaniards who lost their lives in Iraq. We grieve deeply for the needless loss of human life, even of secret agents on an obscure mission, and we offer our heartfelt condolences to their families. However, we cannot fail to point out that the Spanish government which sent them there bears sole responsibility for their deaths. More importantly, we grieve for the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by the foreign invaders and conquerors of their homeland and we bitterly condemn the fact that you made no reference to them, as if they were a lower order of human beings. We hope that sense will prevail and that the foreign invaders will withdraw from Iraq before the resistance of the Iraqi people forces them to beat a retreat.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we were most satisfied to see President Khatami’s forces of modernisation strengthened during the recent elections in Iran. At the same time, however, hopes were raised that there would be an acceleration in the processes of democratisation, respect for human rights without discrimination on the grounds of gender, religion or nationality and stronger dialogue with the European Union. Unfortunately, the case of the 13 from the Jewish community, including a sixteen-year-old boy, is yet another link in the long chain of prosecutions, usually on trumped-up charges, intolerance and discrimination against minorities living in Iran. Greece has started using its good relations with Iran to wage a campaign and to take steps to rescue the 13. We are using diplomatic channels to try and ensure that the death penalty is not imposed or, more to the point, is not carried out. We feel that such an occurrence would put both relations between Israel and Iran and stability in the already sensitive Middle East to the test, which is why the European Parliament must send a strong message to Iran today, a message stressing the need to respect human rights, respect the international conventions which Iran has signed and grant a moratorium on the death penalty. Akin Birdal

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the difficulties faced by the peace process in the Middle East are well known. As for the political obstacles to be tackled, these are all too apparent. The weight of the political problem is in fact so great that it could discourage us when considering an obstacle such as the incorrect application of this trade agreement, which in principle is only a legal problem. Some might therefore consider it reasonable to argue that, since the irregular exports to Europe from the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are not regarded as a priority political problem, these should be halted until a final peace agreement is achieved. However, I believe that the repeated failure to comply with previously concluded legal agreements, combined with the accumulated frustration at non-compliances in other areas, could become a political issue which might prejudice the peace process itself. Specifically and regrettably, in a conflict like the Israeli or Palestinian conflict, everything ends up being politicised if appropriate measures are not taken in time to prevent this happening. In this respect, the answer given by Mr Prodi, at the beginning of his trip to the Middle East just two days ago, to a journalist’s question on this issue, is nonsense. He said that this issue was not on the agenda as this only concerned political issues. Frankly, I believe that the Commission must act if it is proven that preferential access to Community markets is being gained by products originating from these settlements. As the Commission itself states and international law determines, these settlements are not part of the territory of the State of Israel. The fact that Europe is basing its actions on international law in its relations with the parties to the peace process can only benefit Israel. Finally, I want to ask the Commission, which I am sure intends to apply the current agreement, if it has planned any special additional effort or mechanism to make this application more effective in this particular case.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I do not wish to waste Parliament’s precious time on an issue which has already been addressed by Mr Santini and which has already been quite satisfactorily resolved in Italy. I would just like to point out that, as always, where Mr Berlusconi is concerned, every event is prey to political exploitation. This behaviour towards a Head of State is improper and inappropriate.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have no objection to our attempting to resolve the outstanding problems associated with the right of residence of EU citizens, who are, after all, at liberty to move freely throughout European Union territory and reside wherever they choose, particularly when they are pensioners or students. However, I am unable to support this report in principle, because it takes advantage of the situation, with a view to demanding freedom of movement and establishment for all third-country nationals who have the right of residence in a Member State. There are millions of third-country nationals who fit this description, and it is completely unacceptable to saddle other Member States with the consequences of giving freedom of movement to millions of people, without taking the individual Member States’ absorption capacity into account. Many people have doubts about admitting Malta to the European Union. If the demands made in the Boumediene-Thiery report in respect of freedom of movement for third-country nationals were to be met, this would have a far more serious impact than if we were to grant the citizens of the candidate countries in Central and Eastern Europe freedom of movement and establishment, without a transitional period, which is something no one in their right mind would consider. If we really want to fan the flames of xenophobia within the Community, then I can think of no better way than to support the excessive and unreasonable proposals contained in the Boumediene-Thiery report, which thank God, was adopted in committee by only 23 votes in favour to 15 votes against. It is asking too much of the other Member States as it is, for the German Government to allow several million third-country nationals resident on its territory to hold German citizenship in addition to their own. In so doing, with a single stroke of the pen, it creates several million new EU citizens entitled to freedom of movement and freedom of establishment, and in fact they even have the right to vote at local and European elections. Yet at the same time, your colleague Mr Verheugen, is calling for a referendum on eastwards enlargement. What about our right to a referendum against Germany’s being able to decide completely independently, and without reference to the other Member States, to present us with several million more EU citizens? We cannot cope with the consequences of such generosity, as well intentioned as it may be, because it will be open to exploitation, particularly by gangs of human traffickers. I say ‘yes’ to a rational immigration policy that we can sustain, but ‘no’ to the chaos that the Boumediene-Thiery report would inevitably cause.

Political group: PPE-DE
chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – I should like to congratulate and thank all those involved. However, we need a statement from the President-in-Office of the Council to confirm that the budget is correct and that the Council has no objections to it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am happy that the Council is also taking account in this negotiation of the sensitivity of certain regions and certain products, especially in the agricultural sector. At the moment there are agricultural sectors in the Mediterranean and also in the outermost regions of the Community, which could be threatened as a result of the very generous proposed concessions by the Commission. I would just like to repeat what I said and encourage the Council to persist in maintaining the greatest possible vigilance so that those sectors are not fundamentally damaged by overly-generous concessions.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, in the past we might have talked about pigs’ ears, today it looks more like fishy goings-on. We read today in communication COM (2002) 422, which was presented yesterday, that a firm has imported shrimps with very high nitrofuran levels – 20 mg – from Vietnam via Ostend into Germany and then on to Austria and Luxembourg as well as selling them in Germany. How is that possible? This communication is dated 25 November, but only today, nearly four weeks later, is there an early alert. Why were four weeks allowed to elapse? I would like you to give me, and Luxembourg’s consumers, a clear answer. My second question is this. On 2 October you relaxed controls for Vietnam. That is a Commission decision. I will read you what it says: 'The Vietnamese competent authority has provided the appropriate guarantees, and the results of the checks carried out by the Member States on shrimps imported from Vietnam have been favourable'. Have checks been carried out? Were there on-the-spot inspections in Vietnam? Was there one or more than one? If there were no checks, what is the reason for that? If no checks were made, Commissioner, on what basis can you say with a clear conscience that the Vietnamese ‘competent authorities have provided the appropriate guarantees’?

Political group: Verts-ALE