GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
To quote the rapporteur, who is a member of my own political group, if we want fairer trade, contributing to sustainable development and to the fight against poverty, concrete measures must be introduced at the forthcoming WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun to take account of developing countries’ requirements as regards world trade. The insufficient production capacity of developing countries and their continuing dependence on primary and low-value-added products must be combated, in order to ensure the diversification of production and technology transfers. The problem of suffocating debts must be addressed, the aim being to cancel such debts. Dumping in agricultural trade must be abolished, the principle of agricultural self-sufficiency promoted, development assistance increased up to the agreed 0.7% of GNP, and the right of access to medicines protected. Just as important, however, is the need to safeguard public services, in particular by banning the liberalisation of such services. It must be borne in mind that the liberalisation of world trade has led to a deepening of the divide between rich and poor countries, and a reduction in participation by the latter in world trade. The injustices of world trade are the fruit of the development and global expansion of the capitalist system itself.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, one of the consequences of globalisation is the emergence of the feeling of belonging to the world. This means that our citizens increasingly feel that the poverty and underdevelopment in which a large part of the population lives affect them and makes them demand that the public authorities demonstrate greater commitment in the field of development cooperation. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I hope that this message is conveyed to you when you arrive: responding to this request from the citizens for greater solidarity requires giving the least-developed countries the opportunity to implement the changes necessary to achieve the progress and well-being of their peoples and to make the framework that you have described for us this morning and, with which we are very happy, a reality. It also requires, however, a fixed-term commitment to go beyond what was agreed in Laeken and to establish a strict timetable for States that have not yet done so to achieve, within the deadline set, the objective of allocating 0.7% of gross domestic product to official development aid and to do so in order to comply with an ethical requirement: we cannot continue to tolerate the living conditions that so many millions of people, who embody our own dignity and our own rights, are forced to endure. Solidarity is part of our acquis. We must also make this commitment for the sake of coherence, because the challenge of eradicating poverty, which the European Union has taken up, requires a budgetary effort in line with the magnitude of the task facing us. And because, without development, democracy and respect for human rights are nothing more than pipe dreams. And, lastly, because contributing to the progress and development of peoples is the best weapon with which to ensure international peace and security, something that, unfortunately, not all countries seem to understand.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, foreign policy needs to be based not only on fundamental moral values and principles, but also on success in achieving its aims and objectives, and this should not be confused with opportunism. I therefore support everything that has been said here about condemning the barbaric war being waged by Russia, which is a war that recalls the darkest days of the Soviet Union. What we want to see is a new Russia, not a seamless transition from the Soviet Union, but a new Russia. To my mind, it very much remains to be seen whether the new President Putin can guarantee this, certainly on the basis of what we have seen so far. So there is no alternative to condemning this war and saying that although we certainly condemn terrorism we regard Russia’s reaction as being totally disproportionate, inappropriate and unacceptable. That is what we should condemn. But we should not fool ourselves into imagining that in this case we simultaneously want to achieve something important for peace in Europe and throughout the world as whole, that is to say a dialogue with Russia and ultimately a partnership with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia is only accepting this in words, not in deeds. That is why I think it is important that this interparliamentary delegation exists. It is the job of the Council Presidency and the Commission, whilst at the same time defending moral values and condemning this war, to endeavour to ensure that we support those forces which are all too poorly represented in Russia, but who nevertheless wish to pursue a European path, a path towards a European partnership, a partnership with the European Union. This is the formula we need: condemnation of the war and a visit by the delegation, after which we must take whatever steps are necessary. And if those steps have to be harsh ones, then we should, in full awareness of the facts, not shrink back from taking them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, anyone who takes Europe seriously wants to provide a good future for young people in the European Union. This includes, most importantly, ensuring that young people can develop their skills and talent in any place of their choice in any country in the Union, irrespective of where they are from and where they trained. Anyone who has learned something at one end of the Union should be able to pursue his or her career in a country in the middle or at the other end of the Union. The European Parliament takes this aspect of the future of young people very seriously, which is why we keep pressing to have equivalent qualifications recognised in all Member States. We want to ensure that there are no bureaucratic hurdles to hamper citizens' rights of freedom of movement and freedom of establishment. But we also want to guarantee high training standards; high standards guarantee progress and are in the interests of all our citizens. Thanks to the excellent work by the rapporteur, Mr Wieland, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has had no trouble highlighting a few important points in the directive before us today. I hope that plenary shares its views and will vote in favour by a large majority. The Group of the will, in all events, be voting in favour of all, I repeat all the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs. It is most important both to me personally and to my group that the need for lifelong learning has been highlighted, thereby ensuring that doctors, who are the focus of this directive, have a high standard of future-orientated professional qualifications. The need for professional qualifications acquired in individual Member States to be seen as equivalent also cut clear across the political divide. That is as important for patients and, in the final analysis, for all citizens, as it is for the medical profession itself. For this reason alone, it is important for the Council to follow the European Parliament's lead and not to take refuge in the conciliation procedure, which may allow it to gain time, but not recognition. Thank you for listening. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is going to accept this Supplementary and Amending Budget practically in the form in which it has been delivered by the other institution. We accept that we are dealing here with a genuine budgetary emergency. We need this extra EUR 900 million in order to implement the plan which the Commission has drawn up to combat BSE. Above all, we must make our cattle farmers and public aware that the European Union is a common solution to their problems. We would do irreversible harm to the process of European integration if we did not find a common response to this general crisis, which is the first truly general crisis in the Union. And this response must be first and foremost a financial one. Later on we can discuss when we must apply all the principles of Agenda 2000 in the field of agriculture, but now – and I say this again – is not the time to be talking about the future of the common agricultural policy. Now we have to offer real responses, financial responses. We have to help European cattle farming with hard euros. This is not the time to be discussing cofinancing rates, and there is therefore a majority in this House which, in principle, rejects the budgetary amendments to the Haug report, despite the opinion of certain people such as Mr Stenmarck. There is still one outstanding financial issue: will there be sufficient money in Category 1 for additional measures when they become necessary for the month of May? Agenda 2000 establishes a multiannual budgetary framework, which has been approved unanimously in the Council and by a sufficient majority in the European Parliament. Would this not therefore be the time to say why the real budget for 2001 is, by a considerable percentage, less than that approved in the Berlin Financial Perspective for this year? I would also like to say that perhaps the true financial debate does not lie in seeking an impossible revision of the Financial Perspective approved in Berlin, but in complying with the budget that was actually promised there. I believe that that would be a truly European response.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this was a highly controversial report within the Industry Committee which only approved its opinion by 29 votes to 26. The division in the Environment Committee was overcome as the major groups managed to agree a compromise. On behalf of the Socialist Group, we support this compromise. We reject the view that the legal basis of the report is wrong. We support the creation within the EU of a single market in cigarette and tobacco products. At the same time, within the limits of Community law, we would like to use the opportunity of maintaining and strengthening public health protection within the EU. We believe that nicotine and tar levels need to be further limited and new limits should be imposed on carbon monoxide levels. We believe that health warnings should be bolder, clearer and larger. Nevertheless, my concern is that in some areas, our good intentions are in advance of common sense. If we are to have a single market, surely we should have mutual recognition of the common procedures for testing. It would be absurd to make each Member State test separately. Secondly, I hope that countries outside the EU will follow our lead in cutting limits on nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide. It seems absurd that we insist on exporting jobs from the EU to applicant countries and others to produce cigarettes that will be legal to import for personal consumption within the European Union. Thirdly, I accept that the latest research indicates that smokers compensate for lower tar levels by smoking light cigarettes differently. Nevertheless, banning such terms as 'mild', 'light' and 'low' threatens to make illegal long-established extra-European brands like 'Mild Seven' with all the consequences for the WTO rules and it will merely increase sales of thesauruses to the tobacco industry. If I were to be mischievous, I would recommend 'Organic Green' or 'One' as appropriate substitutes. Despite these reservations, I hope the general thrust of the report will receive strong support from Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is not only dictatorships that traditionally evoke resistance from many of their inhabitants; centralised states and multiethnic states do so as well. Centralisation means arrogant governments that think they know better than the people who are experiencing the regional problems and who choose solutions for them themselves. Furthermore, if the national language is not the language widely used in education, government and the economy, there will be a split between first-class citizens who have grown up with the dominant language from birth and second-class citizens who have merely acquired it. Democratic government in Europe cannot exist if cultural diversity and regional differences are not taken into account. The existence of the European Union is resulting in the power of the governments of the Member States growing in comparison with their national parliaments and their regions. This expansion is at the expense of the positions that Scotland, Catalonia, Friesland, Corsica, Flanders or the Valle d’Aosta have now acquired, while in these areas in particular the people yearn to be put on a more equal footing with the Member States. The Napolitano report, in which the regional and regional governments [sic] are protected against large-scale centralist thinking and actions, is therefore an indispensable contribution to democracy and peaceful coexistence in Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish sincerely to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou for her forward-looking report on developing the service sector in such a way as to create new and, I would emphasise, important future jobs. I wish at the same time to express my pleasure and satisfaction at the fact that Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, as rapporteur, and the committee as a whole have so kindly dealt with the many amendments I put forward. I would mention a number of them in this House, item by item. Firstly, undeclared, or ‘black’, work must be converted into regular work within the service sector in order to improve the general business climate and taxpayer morale and to create competition under equal conditions. The EU must step up cooperation in combating ‘black’ work. Secondly, the European Parliament should call upon the Member States to develop and stimulate the support and household-related service sector in order to make it easier to combine working life and family life, especially in the light of the European Union’s having identified the demographic challenge as one of its most important issues for the future. Thirdly, the European Parliament should make the Member States aware that demographic developments in the majority of Member States are such that work in the area of care for the elderly should be accorded higher status, especially among young people. I want to emphasise that. Fourthly, the European Parliament should emphasise to the Member States the urgent importance of increasing opportunities for disabled people and immigrants to have access to the labour market in the service sector. Such improvements are necessary in the light of future needs in, for example, the health and health care sectors, as well as in order to increase these groups’ participation and integration in the labour market and in the social community. I would also emphasise the need for the report to signal the value of entrepreneurship and the spirit of new enterprise in the service sector, as well as the evolution of a dynamic and creatively developed cooperative service and business sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
I cannot but vote in favour of the report by Giuseppe Nisticò. This is because for a long time all sorts of people from all walks of life have been warning of the need for Community standards to establish definite rules in this sensitive sector of the collection, processing, storage and distribution of blood and its derivatives. This is a sector where the extreme urgency of meeting great therapeutic needs must never be separated from considerations of control and prevention. Mr Nisticò has set out the arguments extremely well, drawing on the strength of his professional expertise. Those are the reasons, in short, that lead me to support the report in full and consequently to vote for it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I hope that it is a good omen that there are still a few i's left for me to dot. Mr Prodi, you set great store in your reform efforts on introducing a forward-looking employment policy throughout Europe. However, for the economic sector which I represent, i.e. fisheries, this means change. We need to break away from planned economy subsidies in favour of a liberal policy which fosters personal responsibility. We must reduce protective tariffs in order to safeguard effective capacity utilisation in undertakings in the processing industry. What it comes down to is the competitiveness of the European economy on the world market and the existence of thousands of jobs in the processing industry and offshore fishing. However, I am sure that I do not need to remind you of the importance of a branch of the economy which is both an economic and a social factor, which affects not only Germany but all the coastal regions of Europe. Plus, this branch of the economy is one of the few sectors in which Europe has fully integrated powers to decide and act, which is why we expect to be given a right of codecision here too. This has since been unanimously approved. The fisheries policy is due for review in a few months’ time, i.e. at the beginning of the year 2000. So it is somewhat upsetting that there is not so much as a mention of this branch of the economy is this paper. I hope that this is a misunderstanding. Please, Mr Prodi, stand by your word and implement your promises.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against the report as a whole and thus supported the rapporteur from the Group of the European People’s Party , Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou. There is still unfair treatment when it comes to distributing financial aid between those organisations that are part of the European Women’s Lobby and those that have chosen not to join this umbrella organisation. Even though, thanks to action by the , the monopoly situation no longer exists, the European Parliament and the Commission want to continue to discriminate against women’s organisations outside the European Women’s Lobby by imposing special application requirements and by only approving such activities as are carried out by organisations that combat the abuse of women. I find that unjust and difficult to understand, and I recommend fair and equal treatment. - Swoboda report (A5-0390/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the EPLP delegation voted in favour of the mergers and takeover conciliation text. While we realise that the prime objective of this directive was to protect minority shareholders’ and investors’ interests against unscrupulous directors and inefficient company boards in a takeover or merger, in conciliation we achieved the incorporation of amendments tabled by the Socialist Group, which meant that this directive would have recognised the legitimate interests of employees in a takeover bid. Some believe that this directive did not go far enough in this direction and that there is no real genuine consultation of the workforce. Let us be clear: this was a choice between no information and providing information to the workforce in the process of a takeover or merger. As a senior British trade union general secretary said, it is a significant step forward and offers a chance to build a substantial foundation. It would be wrong to oppose the directive because it does not give sufficient rights of information and consultation. This directive would have had no effect on the acquis communautaire of employment rights in the EU, or in the national Member States. It was a minimum requirement. I think you agree, Madam President, that Parliament has not covered itself in glory with its tied result today. We will have no directive on mergers and takeovers and we will have no information and consultation with rights for workers, even though mergers and takeovers will continue to happen across the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is not easy, especially for a Spanish person, to take an objective and dispassionate view of the Cuban problem, because Cuba has a place in the hearts of all Spanish people. Unfortunately, Cuba is an anomaly within the history of the European Union’s foreign relations, as has been pointed out here. Back in 1995, it was not possible to fulfil the mandate given by the Summit to the Commission to present directives with a view to reaching a bilateral agreement at that time. And now, for the second time, Cuba’s incorporation into the Cotonou Agreement is being rejected, at a time when international attention, Mr President, has been focused on the Iraq crisis and taking advantage of that situation there has been a wave of repression, unprecedented in recent years, which has resulted in three death penalties and a wave of arrests which have affected independent journalists, human rights campaigners and peaceful dissidents, many of them from the Christian Liberation Movement. This Parliament is going to adopt a very tough resolution, expressing its inescapable commitment to the cause of human rights and to all those in Cuba and outside it who are fighting for its freedom and its dignity. And I would ask myself, Commissioner, whether in these circumstances, with a country which does not wish to have a link with the European Union – because it has rejected incorporation into the Cotonou Agreement for a second time; with a country whose leaders reject Community aid; with a country whose leaders insult and denigrate European Union Heads of Government; with a country which imposes endless restrictions on the presentation of identity cards by the Commission’s diplomatic representative, it is worth, Commissioner, keeping the office in Havana open. The draft compromise resolution, which will be voted on tomorrow, contains a condemnation of the closure of the Spanish Cultural Centre in Havana. And this does not surprise me, Mr President, because culture is freedom and, therefore, the person who knows most is the most free. What I do not know is whether the Cuban authorities know that it is much more difficult to preserve and maintain the balance of freedom than to bear the weight of tyranny. The people who know this best, Mr President, are exemplary people – such as Oswaldo Payá, the winner of this Parliament’s Sakharov Prize, nominee for the Prince of Asturias Cooperation Prize and nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize – who bravely fight for their rights as people and as citizens and ultimately for their freedom, because they are perfectly aware that at the end of the day, Mr President, freedom – as a compatriot of mine said some years ago – does not make men happier, but simply makes them men. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE