GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning of the negotiations on the proposal for a regulation on public access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the Committee on Budgets considered an opinion on this which I myself drafted. I would like to reiterate the basic principles of that opinion, which are still valid today. We highlighted three main points, the first of these being transparency and openness, which are a fundamental requirement for any system of democratic control. These principles require an administration to be legitimate, efficient, responsible and meaningful for the public. Furthermore, they provide protection against arbitrary actions and the abuse of power. In addition, they contribute to the exposure, punishment and prevention of irregularities and fraud, phenomena that the Commission in particular has been very much subject to in the past. The second main point is the statement that documents produced by the institutions should be made public as a matter of principle. Any necessary exceptions to this principle should be justified. This has now been firmly established. Furthermore, I believed at that time that it was not appropriate to draw up an extensive catalogue listing existing legal provisions, which would only lead to doubts and disputes. The third main point is the public's desire for their rights to be respected in practice by guaranteeing the existence of an accessible registry, as is being requested now, and also, by means of the Internet, to respond swiftly to requests for documents and to justify any refusal of such a request, and last but not least to use the language of the applicant. I would also like to see a coordinating body facilitating all this. We shall see how this works in practice. I am pleased to see that the basic requirements have been established, even if not in full as yet. That can be covered in the revised version. I also believe that the framework agreement should be revised to bring it in line with the requests we have made about openness and relations between the institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is a most useful report on a very important issue. There are some parts I do not like, such as for instance paragraph 13 which promotes tax coordination. I am proposing to table an amendment on that because, as the rapporteur knows, this is a subject particularly dear to the heart of UK Conservatives. But the overall thrust of the report is very good. There is another report out today which was an annual report from the Commission, referred to in today's Financial Times under the wonderful heading 'Brussels demands labour reform'. To quote briefly from the article, 'In its assessment of countries, the Commission will tell France that, like Germany, it must reduce 'fiscal pressure' on labour and reduce the 'administrative burden on companies'.' Certainly anything that promotes labour flexibility, liberates enterprise and reduces burdens on business must be good for the economies of those countries and for employment. But it also addresses this problem of undeclared work. The higher the tax, the more the red tape, the greater the incentive not to declare work. I should like to make one further suggestion. Countries with the highest undeclared work may well be recording the highest official unemployment figures, thereby attracting the highest offsetting regional funds. This is perverse and it is in all our interests to address the problem. Reducing tax and red tape would be a splendid start. I urge Member States to follow the Commission advice and also to note the Glase report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful that the report emphasises the importance of equilibrium and democratic government in our neighbouring regions. I would add that it is only the creation of civil society that will form a basis for democracy and security. Stability is brought about through the division of state and justice, and that is why it is difficult. It is obviously right and proper to underline the importance of the UN’s role in international conflicts. High-tech states can attack anywhere – and that has even happened and in even quite a rash way too. This way they themselves – or we ourselves – can create crises instead of providing solutions. The notion of a closed defence core is strange, puzzling and even frightening. What special form of insecurity has come about in those countries whose neighbours are other EU states? In my own country we have not been aware of any security deficit, even though we have a border with Russia more than 1 000 kilometres long and the Russians across that border outnumber the Finns 30 to one. Obviously, defence cooperation must be open to all who want it, just as economic and monetary union has been. The way we approach international problems has to be in the form of civil crisis management.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I believe we should welcome the fact that the cause fought for by the abolitionists has become, in the space of a few decades, a few generations, one of the general public’s most passionate demands in the field of human rights. When in 1961, abolitionists such as Martin Luther King talked about abolishing the death penalty, it appeared to be a pipe-dream. The following generation – my own – was made aware of the issue as a result of the policy conducted in this area in France, when François Mitterrand and Robert Badinter abolished the death penalty in 1981. We should also bear in mind that countries we thought would never abolish the death penalty so quickly, such as Turkey and various candidate countries, have succeeded in doing so, by showing some real political will, especially since our sitting in this Chamber in June 2001. I therefore believe that, as regards this issue, instead of talking about tactics, it would be infinitely preferable to talk about political convictions and the will to back up these convictions. In fact, when our fellow Member, Mr Ari Vatanen, takes part in the Paris-Dakar rally wearing a badge that features the words ‘no death penalty’, he is raising the awareness of an entire continent. By the way, as Mrs Trautmann said, what is at stake is our ability to tame our instincts for revenge. When we rally forces, we manage to save a Nigerian woman who had children outside marriage from the death penalty. I believe that if we rally forces again, we will be able to get a man named Mumia Abu-Jamal off death row. He has been imprisoned only because he is black, because he was a journalist, because he spoke out for those who have no voice and because he spoke out against the abuses perpetrated by Philadelphia’s racist police. It is with all of these individuals in mind that I say today we should think carefully. As regards the death penalty, the colour at stake is not black or white, but the colour of blood. This is why, in my opinion, we must not extradite people to countries where we know they can expect the death penalty. In particular, it upsets me to think about our fellow citizens currently in Guantanamo, because we do not know what their fate might be. Ladies and gentlemen, what is needed is political will, not tactics.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, Mr President. For decommissioning of the plant, the Swedish model could perhaps be adopted, in which at the moment the money – SEK 0.02 per kilowatt-hour sold, roughly 0.3 of a euro cent – is sent to the Swedish national bank, where it is kept safe no matter what may happen to the enterprises and is ready to be used for decommissioning. With regard to radioactive waste, I would like to mention a specifically Danish problem. We have no nuclear reactors of our own, but we do have waste – 200-300 kg of highly radioactive waste – from the time when we thought we were going to make fuel elements. If we must dump it in Denmark, as the current rules state, it will cost a very, very great deal. If, on the other hand, Denmark were allowed – under new rules, as indicated by the Commissioner, particularly on cooperation between different countries – to add its 200 kg or so of radioactive waste to the many tonnes of highly radioactive waste from the big countries, I doubt that anyone would object to its doing so. This would be advantageous overall to the economy of the EU, although naturally it would be subject to the recipient country in question being happy to receive it. That is not an option available to us at present, since each country is obliged to take back its own highly radioactive waste. This makes no sense in the case of small countries, which have only a small amount of medical and other waste.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution although I did not agree with the individual points. I regret that, at the end of the day, only 238 Members voted for the text, and I would like to ask those responsible for the running of this House to check whether the procedure followed really made sense. To my mind, the fact that so many amendments were tabled is a sign that there had been a failure to reach sufficient agreement beforehand, and the fact that not even the compromise amendments were adopted is a sign that we were not yet ready to vote on this in plenary. I would also ask you, Mr President, to raise this vote in the Bureau, and to consider whether we cannot arrange matters differently, so that we avoid a mammoth voting session like this, which has lasted two and a half hours. And I am sure that in the end there was not a single Member here who could understand what this was all about. We should make sure we do not have procedures like this in plenary in future!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to request that it not be taken this evening. The vote will be totally distorted. We know that a lot of people will leave this afternoon. They do not expect this kind of vote on a Thursday afternoon. Could we not postpone it until the April plenary session in Strasbourg?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to think the Spanish Presidency for helping the Irish Government, and indeed the ratification of the Treaty of Nice, by allaying fears at least in the defence and security areas. This will hopefully allow us a debate on the real issues surrounding the Treaty of Nice and, as colleagues have said, win the hearts and minds of the Irish people through the two declarations which were annexed to the Seville conclusions, stating that EU common foreign and security policy will not prejudice Ireland's traditional stance of military neutrality. Great confusion arose during the last Nice referendum campaign with unrefuted scare stories that we could be forced to take part in foreign missions against our will and even that conscription could be introduced. We now have a so-called 'triple-lock', requiring that any Irish military involvement in international missions overseas has to have in every case a UN mandate, as well as the approval of both the Irish Government and the Oireachtas or Irish Parliament. I do not support the view of many on the 'no' side that NATO is the bogeyman of the world, nor that the UN is necessarily the panacea for all global ills. If we are to have a truly independent or neutral country, as these same people claim to wish, then how do we approve of and allow a situation where any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can prevent Ireland from participating in EU missions when we believe they are appropriate? What I am saying is that Irish foreign policy decisions should not require the agreement of Moscow or Beijing. Nor indeed should our Irish troops now be pulled out of Bosnia-Herzegovina because the United States, as we speak, is threatening a veto on the renewal of the UN mission there. To Commissioner Prodi I say: could I ask you to clarify on the record what exactly you said in Copenhagen yesterday about the implications for enlargement of a second failure by the Irish to ratify Nice? There are contradictory reports and further confusion in the Irish press today. We now need above all crystal-clear leadership on the issue of enlargement, as what is being played out on the Irish stage is a full reflection of the concerns – real and perceived – of all our citizens on the ground. In conclusion, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have suffered greatly, first under the fascist and then the communist joke. The time is long overdue for them to be allowed to rejoin the European family. It is above all a moral imperative. Remember what the King of Jordan said here at the last session: 'there is no future for any without a future for all'.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I recently drove over one of the two bridges between Istanbul and Üsküdar. It struck me how simple it is to cross the Bosphorus, even simpler than crossing the Öresund between Sweden and Denmark. The Bosphorus Bridge took me from the more ancient Istanbul to the more modern Üsküdar. There is no sense of passing from one part of the world to another. Helsinki, in Finland, is still further to the east than Üsküdar on the shore of Anatolia. The assertion that the Bosphorus divides two parts of the world and that the EU must stop there is both inane and vacuous. We should instead be delighted to take on board the interest shown by Turkey in becoming a member of the EU. We should give the country the help it needs in order to reform itself and become a perfectly satisfactory future candidate country. Turkey is a worthy European cooperation partner. Having been a member of NATO for many years and being adjacent to more troubled and conflict-ridden areas, Turkey would remain a key country as a future cooperation partner. To try to set up religious obstacles to Turkish membership of the EU would be not only deeply unfortunate but also downright unchristian. The report before us makes demands of Turkey, demands that must be met if EU membership is to be possible. The report, which is very constructive, nonetheless holds the door clearly open in order to facilitate the future accession of Turkey. The appropriately named Mr Oostlander might be said genuinely to have succeeded with this report on the East.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, despite the resources that the Structural Funds have been devoting for years to furthering territorial balance in the European Union, the 25 richest regions still have a per capita income two and a half times higher than the poorest, and despite the many needs put forward by these least-favoured regions, not all the appropriations earmarked as development funds are actually used each year. I believe we should think about the real causes behind this incomprehensible fact. Perhaps there is a lack of initiatives and the least-favoured areas do not know how to develop. If that is the case, we should not just cross our arms and justify our inaction with the excuse that we give them money but they do not use it properly. We should push forward with an additional policy of analysis, information, training, motivation, consultancy and monitoring to give a boost to new structures and opportunities for development and progress. But it is also possible that what is happening is that from our more developed and more technocratic positions we are being too perfectionist and demanding, imposing too many regulations and conditions, and thus preventing and stifling the appearance of valid ideas in keeping with the level of development of the regions addressed by Community policies. Perhaps we should adapt the Community policies to these regions instead of expecting the regions to adapt to an elitist European policy. What is ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the extraordinary debate has made it even more apparent how diverse are both the viewpoints on the process of enlarging the European Union and also the problems of its future form. Some things are seen as the report depicts them, but many get more critical treatment than they do in the report. Certain things were said which cannot go without criticism; when Europe's borders are at issue, anyone who simply casts doubt on everything done at Yalta and Potsdam, should know what he is doing. It is perhaps no disaster for an announcement to be made about the deferral of the deadline for accession, but elections to the European Parliament are to be held a few weeks after that, and it will be the Fifteen alone who will decide on the results of the Convention. Above all, there are reasons of form and content for deferring the deadline. The problems still to be resolved are trickier than had been assumed. So it is that Poland and other states expect support for agriculture to be reconsidered and that they will not achieve parity before 2013. Fears that a first- and second-class EU could come into being have not been dispelled. Such fears are the natural reaction to great concessions being demanded of the candidates whilst there has been little or no negotiation of the transitional periods that are required. Commissioner Verheugen has understandable complexes if he expects MEPs to digest 6 000 pages of text in order to confirm accession. We should, however, be asking ourselves what we expect of the citizens of the future EU if they have to deal with the same amount. It is incumbent on parliaments – the national parliaments and our own – to put our finger on what is wrong and demand an approach that will secure stability and equality and prevent us ending up going round in endless circles.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, even though many people have spoken out against a war in Iraq, the United States are continuing their threats with new demands, on the pretext of combating terrorism. Calls for American national unity have not been able to mask the social and economic difficulties there, its crisis of political confidence and its restrictions of democratic freedom, which are condemned by many American citizens. We are all aware, beyond the undeniable arguments concerning the reality of Saddam Hussein’s power, supported thus far by Westerners, that one of the main targets of this war is oil. Such a war would also allow other objectives to be targeted, such as strengthening the direct hold over oil and gas resources in the Middle East, in order to kick-start growth in the United States, strike a blow to OPEC, one of Washington’s pet hates, and weaken the Arab world, depriving it of any possible political opposition force. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the matter of the current context of the whole region. This war can only destroy the United Nations’ efforts to consolidate international law in favour of fair, lasting peace. We know it will have further tragic consequences for the Palestinian people. This is borne out by Ariel Sharon’s stated support for Bush, for whom the international situation represents an opportunity to strike further blows against the Palestinian resistance. Moreover, commencing military action in this region will set the Arab world ablaze, plunge the people into decades of poverty, and send weakened political regimes into the arms of fundamentalism. Do not think that our continent will be spared by this war. Europe will be the first target for terrorism and will be a breeding ground for tension, and racism and islamophobia will only increase. It is not too late to prevent this war. To do so, people everywhere, as widely as possible, must express their rejection of the US unilateral policy and it is time for the European Union to shoulder its responsibilities, and forcefully and vigorously restate its commitment to peace, the reason for its construction. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
I very much welcome your remarks, Commissioner. I would like to pick up on just one point, when you said ‘Member States must make much more effort to enable employees to stay longer in employment’. I agree with that. My question really is: what is the Commission, rather than Member States, doing, and in particular what are the EU institutions doing, not just to allow people to stay longer but also to employ older people in the first place? My specific question is: is it true that there are still some EU institutions that have age barriers so that if you are over a certain age, you cannot be employed by them? Have those barriers come down yet? If not, when will they come down?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the course taken by the G8 in Genoa provides food for thought for the governments, particularly the governments of the eight protagonist countries, but also for the Commission and the Council, the institutions, the parties and the movement in which an interesting debate has been opened on the very definition of “no to globalisation”. This is not the time to tackle the issues of public safety and law and order, which are now assuming a European dimension, as has been pointed out, and which require effective responses which also respect rights such as the right to freedom of association and demonstration which is enshrined in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am glad to see that Parliament’s Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has decided to prepare a recommendation to the Home Affairs Council before it next meets in November. However, we cannot fail to express here our deep pain at the loss of a young human life, that of Carlo Giuliani, and our unequivocal condemnation of the violence perpetrated by minority groups in Genoa and elsewhere, and our concern at excessive crowd control measures employed to protect the citizens by sections of the police force who had assumed responsibility for the citizens’ safety. An inquiry into all this is being carried out by the Italian parliament as well as by the Courts, and we ourselves will be able to make use of the results very soon. With regard to the agenda, it has to be said that, as an informal event, the G8 summit is in danger of raising expectations which are hardly ever matched by practical undertakings. However, partly due to the attention that the movement has succeeded in drawing to these summits, it would be almost impossible to avoid addressing the role of the poorest countries and undertaking more convincing action with regard to the issues of debt, poverty, trade, the fight against disease and the environment. To sum up, although it is the responsibility of the movement to reflect on its future, starting with the methods it should use to fight globalisation, and to reflect on the danger of it encouraging unfocused, provocative protectionist tendencies, the task of orienting the global processes, which have hitherto favoured economic concentrations, speculative investment and wide gaps and intolerable injustices, falls to the institution. The next appointment will be the WTO round of negotiations, when the responsibilities of the European Union and the Commission will be far greater than at the G8 summit. The European Commission’s “Everything but Arms” initiative was consolidated by the final statement from Genoa. It is our responsibility to uphold it consistently in our relationship with our citizens and the poor countries which are excluded from the flow of world trade.

Political group: PSE