GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor. I must say that it is very hard for me to follow on from the last intervention. When Mr Puerta mentioned some of ETA’s victims, he made no reference to someone who was killed by ETA 16 years ago. I believe he did this out of respect for me. The person I am talking about was a senator who was also a member of the Basque regional parliament. His name was Enrique Casas. (Loud applause) Madam President, Senator Casas was my husband. I was a widow with four children, the youngest of whom was only eight months old. My husband was an Andalusian by birth and a senator for the Basque Country. He had been sent by the Basque Government to defend the Basque Country in Madrid. His only crime was that he was a and a democrat and nothing more. Madam President, I have never spoken of this here apart from on the day that ETA declared the cease-fire which I welcomed as a ray of hope for all Basque people and for the whole of Spain and Europe. This was the only time I had spoken of my husband’s death but I must do so again today and I do it willingly. Madam President, I was born in Germany, educated in Sweden and married to a Spaniard. I know what democracy is because I had the good fortune to grow up in a country like Sweden which has a long democratic tradition. I arrived in the Basque Country keen to integrate and, despite what has happened to me, I am convinced that some day the Basque Country will achieve the peace it desires. To those who believe that there is conflict in the Basque Country, I would say that the only conflict in the Basque Country goes by the name of ETA and must be eliminated. As for the other problems, we can talk about these. (Loud and sustained applause) We democrats can solve the other problems by allowing everyone to put forward their ideas, because freedom of expression, free elections and freedom in general do exist in the Basque Country. The only restriction on this freedom is ETA which must therefore be eliminated. Then we democrats can talk. (Loud applause)

Political group: PSE
Thank you Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for answering at such length and in such excellent Dutch. We are not always used to hearing you speak like that in this Chamber, so thank you once again. You correctly stated that the Commission was aiming to abolish the Belgian no-claims bonus system and move towards a free tariff structure. I have recently spoken to some representatives of insurance companies, who agreed that the new free tariff system could be beneficial to good drivers. But they make the point: what about those who are more clumsy? What about young people who are often persuaded to take out high premiums? The insurance industry is convinced that the new regulations will increase the general level of premiums, and that accident-prone drivers in particular will want to slip out of the system, leading to a rise in the number of uninsured drivers. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to ask the Commissioner once again, in the light of his proposals and current legislation, what the Commission can do to prevent insurance tariffs rising too high, excessive discrepancies in pricing and accident-prone drivers being squeezed out of the system. What might the Commission be able to do? Is the Commission considering introducing a system based on ranges around a mean, where for instance the standard rate would be 100, with good drivers paying 50 and bad drivers no more than 150? Can the Commissioner give me an answer on this point?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Council's initiative and Mr Deprez' report plug a huge gap in legislation to prevent and suppress hooliganism and violence at football matches, which have taken on explosive dimensions over recent years as a result of the Member States' failure to apply efficient measures. Without doubt, the commercialisation of football and the profit motive are the prime cause of violent episodes at football matches. Brawls are no longer led by wild crowds of fans, they are led by organised mafias using fanaticism and violence to serve specific illegal purposes which have nothing to do with the love of sport. In short, it has been suggested that violence at football matches sells, it brings in a profit. Violence at football matches is organised and orchestrated nowadays, frequently using sport as a front for common crime, such as selling drugs and laundering dirty money, according to an investigation carried out in Britain. Over recent years, various groups of hooligans have been making blatant use of new technology, mobile telephones and the Internet, to organise their activities and, of course, to mislead the police. This being the case, we cannot create a European area of freedom, security and justice unless we first create a network of information points and reinforce police and judicial cooperation between the 15 Member States in order to suppress violence at football matches. Of course, the sports associations still have a crucial role to play in distancing themselves from hooliganism and teaching their fans the importance of friendly competition, collaboration, dialogue, respect for other people's differences and peaceful coexistence. Finally, I should like to point out that the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens will be a important opportunity to revive the Olympic spirit and the ideals of the Olympic truce and peace, as an alternative political proposal to the mindset and culture of violence.

Political group: PSE
Obviously Mr Bolkestein is finding this a difficult one to square with his own principles of the Single Market, and I sympathise with him in that. Clearly, Directive 93/83 is unsatisfactory. Surely therefore the Commission can go back to the Treaty of Rome and the basis of the whole Community. As I understand it, the Commission's role is to make sure that the Community operates as a community and in accordance with its founding treaties. It should therefore work towards the Single Market by bringing forward a new directive which in fact implements the Single Market in television without frontiers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, apart from the fact that it is only partially present in this House, I believe we must acknowledge that the Belgian Presidency has not disappointed and that it has been up to the job of dealing with these clearly very difficult circumstances. I believe that they have thoroughly understood that the task of a Presidency is to bring together wills, to forge consensus, so that the European Union may move ahead. The decisions taken in relation to the declaration on the future of Europe, in relation to the Convention method, in relation to making the common security and defence policy operative, the declarations on the Middle East peace process, Afghanistan, etc. and above all, in relation to the fight against terrorism, are going to allow the European Union to move forward and make progress. What we have to do now is turn declarations into deeds, so that our actions do not remain merely rhetorical, particularly in relation to the fight against terrorism. I believe that the views of the terrorists and their friends, who very much disliked the decisions taken at Laeken, clearly demonstrate that we are moving in the right direction. What we now have to do, once we have consolidated the internal aspects of our project, is turn Europe into an international operator capable of comprehensive action with regard to the challenges facing the world, a world in which nations are too big to resolve their small problems and too small to resolve the big problems we are faced with on a global scale. A European Union which is able to act with one voice and independently in different scenarios and regions and which is able to employ a wide range of political, economic, commercial, civil and military measures which will allow it to achieve its foreign policy objectives. We therefore congratulate the Belgian Presidency, Mr President. I believe that we are working in the right direction, and I hope that the declarations of the European Council in Laeken, which has been a good finale to a brilliant Presidency, can quickly be turned into concrete actions which, as I said at the beginning, will allow the European Union to make significant progress in its project of political consolidation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although the text talks about ‘deepening of democracy’ and mentions ‘emphasis on administrative openness and transparency’ and despite its very aim which is to give the Ombudsman greater access to official documents, its whole spirit is marked by a concern to preserve the ‘professional secrecy’ of the information to which the Ombudsman may have access. Rather than making the institutions and their operation more transparent, the function of the Ombudsman only serves to conceal the fact they are in no way transparent for the overwhelming majority of the population. As a result, we did not vote in favour of the report. And although we did not vote against it either, this is solely because the official French authorities are rising up against slightly more flexible access – solely for the Ombudsman! – to ‘classified documents’, in the name of the Europe of defence and are calling for the report to be rejected. We reaffirm our opposition both to commercial and industrial secrecy and to the so-called State secrets, which are not so much aimed at protecting the State against a third country as at concealing the actions, including the most disgraceful actions, of the State institutions from their own populations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, bilingualism and multilingualism do not just represent a problem in countries wishing to accede to the European Union; they also represent an opportunity within the existing 15 Member States. Is there in fact a best practice or a comparison, a sort of benchmark between the countries which we can apply in order to identify where the best solutions are being found to the problem and which model has proven to be the best so far?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, like many of my colleagues I am pleased to note that the recommendations in the report by Baron Lamfalussy have been implemented. There is certainly a need to extend them to other financial sectors and to include appropriate provisions in the Treaty for this. But before taking this step, a proper assessment must be made of these measures in the light of experience. The issue of secondary legislation was also noted in the Convention Working Group on Economic Governance, of which I was a member. The Hänsch working group and later the plenary Convention meeting noted that this raises horizontal questions in the area of comitology, such as the role of the European Parliament, which go beyond the terms of reference of the Hänsch working group and should therefore be addressed by other groups. We are expecting the Convention to look at the issue in the near future. In the Hänsch working group, MEPs like Mrs Berès and I tried to secure an agreement from the working group that the Treaty should be amended in order to give Parliament a formal call-back right within the framework of this procedure. I challenge Mr Bolkestein's view that it is impossible for the Council to give us a political commitment. If there is enough political will in the Council, anything is possible. It is nonsense to say that Treaty changes can only be made in the IGC. That is legal mumbo jumbo. If there is a real political will in the Council, it can be done. I still feel that Mr Petersen could be more precise in his words. The Lamfalussy procedure should also be taken into account in the national development of the financial services sector. We also need more transatlantic dialogue in the financial services sector at a legislative level. That is very important. I would, in addition, like to emphasise the role of consultation. Consultation processes, as Mr Herzog said, must be formalised and as transparent as possible. I endorse our rapporteur's point about the enabling clause. If it were to be decided that we need a supranational financial supervision authority, that possibility needs to be provided for in the Treaty after the Convention at the next IGC.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, three comments. First and foremost, an observation for you, Mrs Theato. Mr Kuhne said that he only shared half of your journey in this Parliament. I have been with you for both halves. The first half as a political group assistant, the second as Member of Parliament. We have exchanged glances many times in the committee meetings, with me often trying to attract your attention to be allowed to speak. I thank you for the way you chaired our committee and with all our fellow committee members I say: we wish you well for the future. My second comment concerns the van Hulten report. Mr van Hulten has, in my opinion, produced an excellent report. He has rightly paid a lot of attention to following up my report on the discharges that were adopted last year. My report also focused a lot of attention on the seat of Parliament, our travelling popular theatre, and the fact that we have to work at three different locations. I think this is indefensible. The has submitted a number of amendments to scrap those paragraphs. I hope that we, together with the other groups, succeed in not allowing these amendments to be adopted. There is also a paragraph on relations with local residents. I really do want to emphasise that this is of the utmost importance. We go to Brussels, we do not live on an island there. There is far too little contact between Members of Parliament and civil servants and the local residents. There needs to be a much more constructive dialogue with the residents of Leopoldswijk. Finally, the Eurostat affair. I am a bit surprised that we have to have a special debate about this. We are debating a compromise resolution tomorrow, which will probably include all the texts that we as Parliament have already adopted. I share Mr Mulder’s view on political accountability. Mr Kuhne says: we need greater intercultural understanding. I think that, after the new Parliament has been elected, we must explicitly ask the Commissioners in the hearings what they understand by political accountability, so that we never go through what we went through with Mr Solbes in recent years again.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it would seem that some of the work done by this Parliament, and hence work also done by women, is at risk of going to waste as the plenary time we have left is simply not enough. This I think would be a great pity and loss from the point of view of the rapporteurs and those who have tabled amendments, all of whom have done some very thorough work. I would like to ask whether it is possible to hold an additional two-day mini-session at the end of April at which any of these reports that have not been dealt with could be voted on and adopted. This plenary could even be held without a debate or by restricting the discussion to the two-minute speeches by the Commission and the person who drafted the report. I would think it would be more important to deal with a report, even if it is not discussed, than let it come to nothing. The other alternative would be to limit the amount of time allocated to speeches during the plenary in April as just described and extend voting time correspondingly. I hope that you will think seriously about this, Mr President, and that you will seek solutions that are in keeping with Parliament’s increased powers as a legislating body.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the European Parliament is helping by means of this report to relaunch a policy for the outermost regions, as laid down in Article 299(2) of the Treaty. The hesitations and the occasional contradiction we have seen in the Commission’s action in this field recently would therefore be at odds with this. All of the Treaty’s articles must be complied with and all of them must be guaranteed effective implementation. Article 299(2) can be no exception. There are therefore grounds for commending the position adopted by the European Parliament and to praise the balance, competence and experience demonstrated by the rapporteur, Mrs Sudre, and the contribution made by all those who worked together with her, particularly the other seven Members from the outermost regions. Because I am under pressure of time, I will try to highlight the fundamental aspects of the report. I feel that as well as promoting the fairness that underpins changes in policy, systems of derogation and specific measures, in other words dealing in the same way with things that are the same and differently with things that are different, the important thing is that in my region, as in the other outermost regions, people should be able to live in dignity. This requires involvement in productive activities that guarantee a growing degree of self-sufficiency. Since the economy of the outermost regions is classed in Article 299(2) of the Treaty itself as being dependent on a single product or on a limited range of products, we must provide incentives for potential diversification and, at the same time, create better conditions for producing what people actually have the means and the ability to produce. What cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to happen is that we help to eradicate the few comparative advantages that we have. In the Azores, our main product is milk. If we are to take Article 299(2) of the Treaty seriously, I can only hope for an improvement in our framework for producing what we actually have the means and the ability to produce.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it was a remarkable Summit with a remarkable result, because the ten candidate member states nominated by the Commission have passed this stage, so that the negotiations can now be completed and we can remain on schedule for 2004. I am also pleased that the Dutch Government did not put a spanner in the works. This is mainly thanks to the opposition in the Dutch parliament, who were aware of their enormous responsibility. Further to what Mr Oostlander said, I am secretly hoping that the Netherlands will not raise any more unnecessary obstacles on the path to completing the enlargement process. Slovakia, the country for which I am responsible, has reacted with great relief to the events of the past few weeks, including, of course, the referendum in Ireland. After a tumultuous start in the 90s, Slovakia has managed to catch up with those in the lead in the negotiating process, for which it deserves a huge compliment. However, as for the other candidate member states, it is too early for them to rest on their laurels. A great deal of work needs to be done before 2004. In my view, the Heads of Government were right to adopt the Commission's recommendations about creating guarantees with regard to the implementation of EU rules, including the recommendation to shorten the duration of the safeguard rules. We would also draw your attention specifically to the fight against the corruption that is still too widespread in many candidate member states. Thanks to enlargement, we will be getting new neighbours, countries that are also knocking on the doors of the EU. We cannot deal with their questions now as we are now focusing on the forthcoming enlargement. However, we do expect the Commission and the Council, at the end of the negotiations and after the Copenhagen Summit, to table specific proposals to strengthen relations with those countries. In this connection, we will also need to address the question as to what prospects we can offer countries such as the Ukraine. As President Prodi rightly stated a moment ago, enlargement should not lead to exclusion.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the results of the Lisbon Summit demonstrate that everything the Portuguese Presidency has up to now presented as a priority for employment and for combating social exclusion has merely been a massive attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. Its supporters may try to make its conclusions look rosy, whether they are talking about the so-called modernisation of the European social model or about the need to make the European Union the most competitive area in the world, but they cannot hide their real aims, which are to produce a labour market free from the conditions imposed by legislation designed to protect workers’ rights, to put social security entirely in the hands of the financial markets and to speed up the process of liberalisation in fundamental sectors such as gas, electricity, postal services, transport and telecommunications. Therefore, instead of more high-quality jobs with employment rights, instead of a reduction in working hours whilst maintaining salary levels and without flexible working arrangements, the summit’s decision will, in practice, lead to poorer jobs, which are less secure, which provide fewer rights, and do not offer an effective system of social protection. Instead of high-quality public services which meet users’ needs, protect the most vulnerable sectors of society and generate high-quality jobs, the Council has decided to speed up privatisation to satisfy the interests of economic groups and to increase their profits. This will have a harmful effect on employment and on working conditions – which will deteriorate – and on the environment and town and country planning. If we are to draw something positive from this, it is the major demonstration by tens of thousands of workers who condemned the growing instability of employment as they marched past the Lisbon Summit. They condemned unemployment and social exclusion and demanded more high-quality employment, better salaries, more social rights and a change of direction in European policies, in order to achieve economic and social cohesion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In contrast to my other Swedish fellow MEPs who have spoken, I take that as a yes. It is appropriate for Turkey to be involved, while the discussion on the other aspects taken up in my question will be continued elsewhere. I found it particularly interesting to hear the Council’s representative mention the close link between NATO and the EU’s military crisis management cooperation. It is not that common – particularly in our home country Sweden – to emphasise this link between the EU and NATO. This is also sometimes the case with regard to military cooperation. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my extreme irritation with the answers which my Swedish Party colleagues received, namely that there should be only a small group to discuss UN mandates, neutrality, non-alignment and Turkish involvement in crisis management. I would not say that the majority of the Swedish people is a small group. I also know that these issues are being discussed in all Member States.

Political group: GUE-NGL