GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, the 2004 budget is an expression of the anti-grass roots, autocratic policy of the European Union. For yet another year, a budget is being presented which strengthens big business and the expansionist imperialist policy of the European Union. The restriction on the budget items to less than 1% of Community GDP, especially in a year in which it is being called upon to fund not 15 but 25 countries, with enhanced convergence requirements, throws into relief the picture of the promotion of plans to restructure, privatise and liberalise the markets and of the indifference towards the needs of the workers, the poor and the small and medium-sized urban and rural classes, who are being called on to pay the price of the crisis. The general guidelines for the European Union budget for 2004 consist of cutting spending for the Structural Funds and limiting funding for the CAP so that the repressive and aggressive European defence and security policy can be funded on the pretext of fighting terrorism and addressing immigration and creating and funding repressive mechanisms, such as the European army, police and border guards, the central personal records system and so on. The murder of Palestinians by Israel is being funded under the agreements and the invasion of the USA in Iraq is being funded and legitimised. The austerity imposed on the workers and working classes in order to serve the interests of the monopolies is being continued under the Lisbon philosophy, with more intense exploitation, violation of workers' employment and insurance rights, rising unemployment, the destruction of the environment and the continuing commercialisation of health, education and social welfare. The pompous statements on economic and social conversion are categorically refuted by this budget, which presents no substantial redistribution of income to the less developed areas and the working classes suffering from unemployment, underemployment and poverty. Quite the contrary! Any convergence happening is happening downwards, dragging even broader sections of society into poverty and penury. The cutbacks in Community spending on agriculture, within the framework of the philosophy of the WTO and in agreement with the USA, come within the anti-farming framework of the partial reform of the CAP. At the same time, restructuring is being imposed and pressure is being exerted for alternative crops, such as for tobacco cultivation and other Mediterranean products in which the European Union has a deficit, while genetically-modified organisms are being promoted under pressure from the Americans and its multinationals. The budget is funding the extermination of small and medium-sized farming. The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece will be voting against this budget because, instead of resolving, it will create new problems for the workers, farmers and small enterprises in the regions and instead of contributing to peace in the world, it promotes war and the imperialist hegemony.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Schengen cooperation has enabled people to travel more freely in the Member States without having to show their passports at the internal borders. Obviously, such a reform requires more effective patrolling of the shared external borders. In that context, it is of the utmost importance that present and future Member States cooperate closely in order to guarantee border controls of the same standard along the whole of the external border, especially through training and joint guidelines. We are, however, doubtful about the idea of an EU-financed Corps of Border Guards. The national police forces’ monopoly on crime fighting and border patrols within the territories of the Member States is fundamental and should be retained. Police from other countries should not have the power to act in other Member States except under very special circumstances, as is also stated in the Schengen Convention. As far as possible, these rules should also apply to border controls. Individual Member States’ provisions and traditions when it comes to police work, especially procedures relating to ID checks and arrests, differ from one another in many respects. With a joint Corps of Border Guards, there might be a danger of these provisions’ not being fully respected. Financial aid for the border authorities of relevant Member States should instead make it possible to meet the increased need for personnel able to ensure effective patrols of the EU’s external border.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we can only accept what has happened here, albeit through sleight of hand. That too is a democratic right enjoyed by parliamentarians here. At the same time I should like to support emphatically what Mr Poettering and Mrs Maes have just said. We cannot continue making ourselves ridiculous as a Parliament by spending funds in a way that is patently not above board. We do not wish to do this. We cannot collaborate in this. This item must be put on the agenda as soon as possible and as spokesman of the liberal group I should also like to warmly support what Mr Poettering has said. We must discuss this matter again as soon as possible and then adopt a motion.

Political group: ELDR
British Conservative MEPs anticipate the adopted Statute, which does not meet our approval, will equally not meet the approval of the Council. In such circumstances the Council and Parliament must negotiate a Statute which meets both of their requirements. Nothing should remain outside the scope of these legitimate negotiations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, when we look carefully at a resolution on human rights that has no less than 56 recitals and 197 paragraphs, after consideration of 284 amendments in committee, we have many contrasting impressions. I will mention a few of them: does the report make sense, is it useful, are the points raised given adequate priority, are they always confirmed, what role is played by its main errors, by the choice of press agencies and by the media? Nor can we forget political preferences. What can we say to those who assert that the underlying ideology is that of the rich and powerful countries, which judge others according to their interests and their criteria without always applying the same standards at home? The attitude of the United States provides us with an illustration that is more than a caricature in this area: treatment of its prisoners, refusal to accept the ICC, preventive war, death penalty, etc. I am stopping there a list that is by no means complete and to which everyone could add. As regards overall usefulness and validity, each person must make up their own mind. Personally, in spite of many doubts, I have nevertheless concluded that this report is useful and I congratulate my colleague Mr van den Bos. Having stated this, we must then go into more detail to measure and to weigh up the gaps and the excesses that are wrongly included in the report and those, also wrongly, that are missing. My colleague Mrs Pernille Frahm and I tabled nine amendments in committee, seven of which were adopted, and of the 27 amendments in plenary, eight were adopted by the members of my group. This is evidence of our interest and thus our belief that this report is useful. Finally, you will see that not one of us, and I mean not one of us, will agree with everything that is adopted. I, personally, could list all of the points that bother me and those with which I disagree. In my opinion, in spite of everything and without denying the negative, the positive prevails and I am prepared to vote in favour of this report, unless it is distorted as a result of certain votes. I do still have some concerns regarding the desire on the part of some people to replace freedom of conscience with religious freedom and some other fears regarding certain political links. Other colleagues will make different choices, including Members within my own group; that is democracy. The most important thing, and I must emphasise this, is the need to wholeheartedly defend human rights, all human rights, including economic and social rights, throughout the world. Yes, I stress that we must defend them in every country, without exception!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like firstly to commend the rapporteur, and also Mr Sjöstedt for his opinion on this report. I have had the satisfaction of working on EIB matters for many years, and I often say that it is more difficult getting into the EIB than into Fort Knox. It is still a hard fight to obtain greater transparency and supervision where the EIB is concerned. The bank is still very unwilling to open its accounts and projects up to external supervision. It is almost impossible for the Court of Auditors to obtain access to documents. The bank always refers to banking secrecy or to the fact that the money does not come from the EU budget but from its own resources. In March 1999, the EIB, the Commission and the Court of Auditors signed an agreement concerning the Court of Auditors’ being able to supervise the EIB, but I firmly believe that the agreement must be altered so that it gives the Court of Auditors the same right to supervise the EIB as it has to supervise the ECB. I am extremely pleased, moreover, that Parliament is now making this demand. Why should the EIB have special status? That is something I absolutely cannot accept. I would compare the EIB with the goblins’ bank in the Harry Potter books, namely a totally closed institution in which no one must interfere.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am very pleased that the political groups have reached a compromise position on this report, which actually consists of two reports rolled into one. I am sorry that at the beginning of the negotiations I had to be so inflexible and stubborn, but I am pleased to say that once the , for once, started to talk sense, we could also show some flexibility. With the Council's acceptance of this compromise, the measures contained in this report can be brought into force without delay. We have come together on three important issues: firstly, on the issue of cement. Nobody argues with the fact that hexavalent chromium causes dermatitis but, of course, we must not forget that only 50% of dermatitis cases are linked to this particular cause. As the rapporteur has said, dosing cement with ferrous sulphate counteracts this problem. The initial suggestion from the Commission was that we should limit this dosing to cement used for manual use. But the whole of Parliament agreed this was very hard to define as even, for example, when one is pouring a large motorway bridge or laying a large floor, there is a certain amount of manual work involved in grouting or finishing. The compromise we came to was only to exempt uses in closed industrial applications, for example, the manufacture of concrete blocks, concrete lintels or other products of that type. The second issue regarding cement was the risks of long-term exposure. The rapporteur has talked about the carcinogenic and mutagenic problems of chromium-6 but, of course, nobody is realistically suggesting that the levels of chromium-6 in cement pose a risk. However, we need to look at the problem without raising undue concerns which would worry the workers in this industry and make the insurance industry very cagey indeed. It is important that we set limit values and that we do so in a sensible way, although we already have limit values set in the United Kingdom. On the issue of nonylphenol, this is an aquatic pollutant, and although many in the committee tried to talk about health risks and bring in other factors, we must concentrate on the case at hand, which is making sure that nonylphenol does not reach water courses and is banned in applications where there is no alternative. We need exceptions and the problem of using nonylphenol ethoxylate as a co-formulant in pesticides is one that we addressed. The compromise is to allow existing pesticides to continue until the end of their licensing period, but it will be banned in new pesticides. Incidentally, we still allow them to be used in spermicides in condom production where there is no alternative. I am pleased that we reached an agreement and avoided a second reading and possible conciliation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the expectations of the Belgian Presidency are rightly high, and with regard to the enforcement of respect for human rights the Belgian Presidency can certainly play a notable role. The same applies to the determining of a common EU position on the occasion of the extraordinary session on children’s rights at the United Nations. It would be generally appreciated if the Belgian Presidency were to succeed in getting the European Union to speak with one voice. It can build on the efforts already made by the Swedish Presidency to decide on a common strategy. As far as content is concerned there should be especial emphasis on the fact that as regards free access to education for all children and guaranteed health care provision, binding agreements should be made. The European Parliament should pay extra attention to the situation of children in the candidate-Member States, specifically Bulgaria and Romania. For that matter it could be decisive if the European Parliament were to take the initiative of inserting the dimension of the rights of the child into the rights of human beings in general. In addition I should like to urge the EU in bilateral exchanges between European Member States and third countries to focus attention systematically on the situation of children in the third countries. This approach will undoubtedly bear fruit if pursued consistently.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my aim has been to ensure that the European Union, at least in administrative terms, hits the ground running when it becomes a Union of 25, and also to try to achieve a balance between the necessary increases in resources and, at the same time, ensure value for money for the European taxpayer. This budget achieves value for money, and we can congratulate ourselves that we have achieved that juggling act and managed to finance enlargement without breaking the ceiling in heading 5. This budget fundamentally completes the process of enlargement budgeting and it is a good result for the European taxpayer. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would, first of all, like to thank the Portuguese Presidency for their work, also because I have just heard Mr Vedrine, the future President-in-Office, say that he considers that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should not be binding and should not be included in the Treaties. In my opinion, this is a very difficult subject, and one over which we will lament the passing of the Portuguese Presidency, for, at least on this point, it maintained a position which, if not crystal clear, was at least less negative. The Feira Council will be a major Council if it is ambitious enough. The Presidency has just announced that closer cooperation will be discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference. However, there are many different ways of defining closer cooperation and, in our opinion, certain criteria must be respected. The first is total observance of the acquis communautaire; the second is the abolition of the right of veto for every Member State; the third is full respect of the roles of Parliament, the Commission and the Court of Justice in the decision-making procedures with regard to the initial introduction and implementation of closer cooperation. The Charter of Fundamental Rights should have been included in the subjects for debate, Minister. Let us hope that external pressure which will, I hope, increase, will be sufficient to bring it to your attention. This Charter will only be a success if it has binding legal status – its content must, of course, be sound, but it must also have legal status – or it will serve absolutely no purpose – and if it includes other new rights such as the right to a safe environment and a number of fundamental social rights such as the right to belong to a trade union and the right to strike. Thank you again, Portuguese Presidency. We urge you to be present, active and vigilant in the matters which are important to you: some of them are very important to us too.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, when the tsars were in power in Russia the country had a common legal system. The monarchy did not govern the country by laws, however, but by exceptions to them. The principle which prevailed in tsarist Russia now holds true for the system of public access to European Union documents. The documents are publicly available, but their secrecy is assured by derogations. The documents pertaining to the common foreign and security policy are better kept secrets in the EU than Freemasons’ rituals, and the Worshipful Master of the EU Lodge is NATO. It has a monopoly over EU documents but has no connection with democracy. A culture of secrecy has been built into the EU, one that Parliament also helps to support. Last summer, a majority in Parliament approved a framework agreement with the Commission on the subject of public access to documents, one that places the various Members of the European Parliament in unequal positions. As a result, more than twenty Members brought an action against Parliament and the Commission for infringement of basic provisions in the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. I wish to express my regrets to my Swedish fellow Members, but this wretched compromise has to be rejected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on a point of order, I am sorry to delay the House when I know there is a large amount of voting to go on. I have just discovered from my agenda that the vote on my own report is to be taken last. I have not been consulted about this. Indeed I indicated earlier that this needed to be taken as early as possible in the voting because – and as one of those involved in aviation, I know this better than most – I have only got one flight to get me home. And so I am stuck! So I throw myself upon the mercy of the House and wonder whether it would be possible to vote early, rather than to vote late, on the report?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we support this directive. I will not deny that there was a lengthy debate about specific points. The most important bone of contention in our group was the inclusion of the self-employed. The majority of the group supported that view, but even so, unlike the discussions at first reading, where the Commission and Parliament agreed that the self-employed should be included, the debate was much more difficult this time. However, the majority of the group was, as I said, in favour of including the self-employed. Why? Firstly because the self-employed, like any other workers, are obviously entitled to health and safety at work. Secondly, competition. It is not right for businesses, whether independent or working with employees, to compete with each other on working hours, as is the case with the Common Position of the Council and the Commission. A third reason – probably the matter on which the public is rightly most sensitive – is that many regrettable accidents occur, very often due to the fact that people have to work far too many hours and there is too little control. What is more, the control is made even more difficult by tachographs being tampered with. This has a human cost, whether to tourists travelling south or motorists forced off the road by a lorry driver who has fallen asleep at the wheel. I believe it is our duty to adopt a regulation on this at European level. That does not mean it is not still open to discussion. The Group will not be supporting two of the points. Firstly, according to the text discussed in the Commission, employees are to be informed twelve hours or a specified number of hours beforehand and before the end of the previous shift of the start and length of their period of availability. We shall not be supporting that because we believe that the unpredictability of traffic flows makes it really too difficult to organise. The second point is that according to Amendment No 8, employers should count the time a non-driving worker spends sitting next to the driver whilst the vehicle is in motion as working hours. We agree with the Commission that that should continue to be counted as a period of availability and not as working hours.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Prodi, ladies and gentlemen, in support of what Mrs Stenzel has just said, I would like to add that it is never too late and never too soon to hold a debate of this kind. At this particular point I believe that the events of recent weeks have brought more seriousness into politics and that the public is making greater demands on politicians. This provides an opportunity to contribute to a renaissance of political matters and also to a significant renaissance of cooperation between leaders, those in positions of responsibility and the representatives of the people, that is to say the parliaments. That is how we should approach this debate. When you say in the introduction to your paper that the public feels greater distrust, more apathy and more powerlessness, I agree with you. However, in your second paragraph you say that this problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike, and that it is particularly acute at the level of the European Union. I have a problem with this wording. We – Parliament and the Commission – are acting as if national governments and national parliaments were on one side and the European Union on the other. The public is particularly aware of this contradiction, with the Member States and the European institutions apparently on opposite sides. We need to make it clear for once and all that we collectively are the European Union! There is virtually no such thing as a European decision without the participation of the national governments, but there are a good many European decisions without codecision by the European Parliament. Codecision leads to transparency and openness and facilitates dialogue, and is therefore the starting point for a clear separation of powers and allocation of tasks. Your report talks about leadership. I wish to call for more Commission initiatives based not so much on a minimum Council consensus but rather on what Europe needs. It talks about cooperation with the regions, yet in the Belgian Presidency's proposal for the convention the Commission of the Regions is not even a full member of that convention. Yet that is what we need. We talk about more information, but our actions are limited to giving the Member States more money for their information work, while the Member States do not give their own parliaments sufficient information about their decisions in the Council, and therefore exclude their citizens from European decision making. By way of conclusion, I wish to call for proposals for sanctions in the case of misuse of EU funds, because that leads to distrust about the institutions on the part of the public. Wherever the EU is involved, that must be made evident, from the European institutions themselves to the smallest local council. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
We have voted in favour of the proposal to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1734/94 on financial and technical cooperation with the Occupied Territories (West Bank and Gaza), but we believe that matters must be carefully followed up with a view to making it clear that appropriated EU funds will not be used for purposes other than those intended, for example for propaganda activities not designed to promote peace.

Political group: PPE-DE