GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the increasingly frequent meetings of the Heads of State and Government of the European Union mean that they are increasingly unable to fend off charges that they are tackling issues which actually have no business at European level while continuing to ignore the issues which they should be addressing. In Feira a clear delimitation of responsibilities between European level and the level of the Member States was not discussed; the lifting of the absurd sanctions against Austria was not discussed, and neither was a really workable compromise on the taxation of savings interest discussed. The conclusion reached postpones the problem for 10 years. Conversely, issues were debated which at the present time do not belong on the European agenda. With how many countries should we actually begin further negotiations? We must at long last develop phased procedures to govern cooperation between the European Union and countries in central, eastern and southern Europe, which meet the needs of both parties including where these stop short of full membership. What is the position on compliance with the convergence criteria when admitting further states to the euro? Sustainable stability must be proved by all countries which want to join the euro zone, but also by those which are already in it. Only in this way will it be possible to boost the strength of the euro. We do not need closer cooperation on the social dialogue – that goes beyond the powers of the European Union! We do not need more centralist regulation in this field; if we really want to unleash the forces of growth in the EU we need more competition between the individual national social security systems. Only the results in the field of security and defence policy are to be welcomed. Here Europe needs to act; here we need more Europe. That is what the people of the EU rightly expect of us. I call upon you as a matter of urgency to put an end at long last to the sanctions against Austria – and we do not need a report from the Court of Human Rights to do this either, as the media is in any case monitoring the situation on a daily basis – and to concentrate your efforts on the real European issues!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for me, as a German MEP, the reunification of Europe, for which we have voted today, is of comparable significance to the restoration of the unity of my own country. It is for that reason that I approved today's applications for accession with all my heart, including that of the Czech Republic. I do, however, profoundly regret the Czech Republic's failure to annul the expulsion decrees and, in particular, the Immunity Act, which is contrary to every principle of law. I have therefore declared my approval of the accession of the Czech Republic as well in the conviction that, if the Czech Republic becomes a Member State of the European Union, we will be able to represent better and more effectively the interests of the German expellees and of the German minority in the Czech Republic, to whom I feel a sense of obligation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think that we have to make the best of a bad job, because we are fortunate enough to have quite a full House, which is quite rare for a Wednesday afternoon. We can see that the trick worked and that it is perhaps for the best. In fact, my group was intending to vote for the Schleicher report, as long as some slight improvements were made to the rehash produced by the committee, which, it must be said, was not particularly impressive. We are now being asked to allow a short delay, in order to improve it further. There is certainly room for improvement and I think that some good can come out of this. My only regret is that Mr Pasqua did not come in person to tell us how he intends to proceed in the future to ensure that the funding of political parties is carried out with the utmost transparency.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, President-in-Office, Commissioner, thank you very much for your remarks here today, especially for the clear language which you, Madam President-in-Office, used and which is not always found in the Council’s statements. You actually described what the Israeli government is doing, namely murdering its opponents, whom it accuses of being terrorists, as murder. In the light of this fact I find it embarrassing and sometimes in poor taste to make reference to schoolbooks when we see that Orient House is occupied, Palestinian territory is invaded and occupied and Palestinian police stations are systematically destroyed regardless of the human casualties. Anyone who says Mr Arafat is responsible for what is going on there cannot be very well informed about politics. Everything we have tried and proposed in the past has failed, sending observers – I am glad Mr Van Orden also advocates that – all that has failed because of the Israeli government’s refusal to accept it. Even the Mitchell report, which we all support as a common point of reference, cannot be implemented because the Israeli government under Mr Sharon – who is wanted by the police in your country, Madam President-in-Office, which is why he cannot be invited to Brussels – wants to interpret the Mitchell report and determine when it will be applied. In view of this situation, I am no longer calling for greater involvement in the process. We want to be involved, but we are not accepted. What else can we do? We have a treaty with Israel and we ought to give some thought – you have also mentioned this in the past, Commissioner, where treaties have been broken – to whether we can maintain that treaty in force or whether we ought to suspend it.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, in my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of the committee, I would imagine, the two related reports before us this evening have been prepared with undue haste. Their quality is certainly not in keeping with the legal traditions of Europe and its Member States. The two reports focus in particular on the approximation of laws on the confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property. They specifically concern the possibility of extensive powers of confiscation, in other words the confiscation not so much and not only of the proceeds of the crime itself but also of all the other property in the possession of a person sentenced to a very long prison sentence who cannot prove that the property is of lawful origin. This part of the report, Commissioner Vitorino, was deleted by the committee, and what remains is therefore the possibility of confiscating crime-related proceeds. However, a framework decision is not necessary to achieve this result in the European Community, for the legislation of almost all the European countries provides for the compulsory confiscation of crime-related proceeds or, at least, makes this possible. Precisely in order to overcome the committee’s difficulties in accepting the inversion of the onus of proof – Amendment No 11, amending Article 3(1) – I suggested, by means of an amendment which is very reminiscent of the Italian legislation on the subject, the possibility of confiscating additional property – the property subject precisely to extended powers of confiscation – only where the prosecution has proved that the property possessed is disproportionate to the activity pursued or, in any case, exceeds the person’s income as declared for tax purposes. The person convicted would then have the chance to prove the lawful origin of the property. The provisions were therefore toned down but the onus of proof not actually inverted. The committee was disconcerted, surprised, confused by this, and therefore rejected my amendment. I therefore call upon the House to adopt this amendment, for this is the only way to include in the legislation extensive powers of confiscation, which is one of the goals of the proposal and, in my opinion, also a useful tool for combating organised crime. It is based on a dual principle. The prosecution has to prove that the person’s property is disproportionate: in other words, it has to prove that the value of the property exceeds the person’s real activities and their income as declared for tax purposes, while the person convicted has the option to prove that this property is of lawful origin. If, however, the report remains in the form adopted by the committee, it will be absolutely useless, for – I stress – the European countries already have similar legislation in place and do not need a European Parliament framework decision.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We have voted against the Haug report. We see the report in terms of a desire on the part of the Committee on Budgets to furnish the European Union with its own right of taxation. This is in conflict with the general opinion prevalent within the EU and runs counter to the will of the Member States. We understand this as another attempt by the European Parliament, characterised as it is by federalist sentiment, to take further powers away from the Member States. In connection with Agenda 2000 and in the course of the Berlin Summit, the EU had the chance to implement a reform which would have distributed the financial burdens properly and fairly. However, this chance was missed by the EU, which did not wish to carry out adequate and thorough reforms of agricultural policy and of the contributions to the structural funds. These are a burden upon most of the expenditure under the EU’s budget. To introduce “autonomous own resources” as the Committee on Budgets wishes to, would also require the EU to establish its own tax administration. This week, the Court of Auditors has reported that at least 40 billion disappeared from the budget last year. In light of this, it appears extraordinarily provocative to propose that the EU be given its own right of taxation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We have voted against the report by Mrs Müller on food supplements. We believe the legal grounds for the decision are incorrect and that the EU lacks the competence to push through harmonising legislation in this area. The question of food supplements is a public health issue which should wholly or in part be decided on the basis of Article 152 of the Treaty on European Union, in which harmonisation is ruled out.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Europe is becoming more democratic, more transparent, and closer to its people, it has certainly not finished with this Constitutional Treaty. We are a project, on which work must be in continual progress. The codecision procedure is becoming the rule and unanimity the valid exception. The citizens’ parliament’s legislative competence is being extended more than twice over. The way in which the national governments share responsibility for European decisions is being made more transparent, so it will be harder to make accusations, and the information given to the public will need to be more honest. Two of the constitution’s fundamental pillars of governance are the subsidiarity principle and the environmentally responsible market economy. There is, of course, criticism. Aspects that have been criticised and cry out for amendment include the current proposal on the composition of the Commission, unanimous voting on taxes relevant to the internal market and on the Common Foreign Policy, as well as the absence of a common information campaign and of any requirement that the public be involved in the process of ratification. It is because Europe needs European awareness, an awareness that only information can create, and because we need our citizens to be informed and involved, that I advocate – even though the legal basis for it is not yet in place – a Europe-wide referendum, to take place at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. It is because we have to inform, because we have to make citizens participants – and what could be more vital than to pro-actively tell the public about the European constitution, with its fundamental rights and civil liberties for citizens and to enable citizens to participate? I call on the members of the Intergovernmental Conference to hold a Europe-wide referendum to introduce the process of ratification, and I call upon my fellow Members of this House to endorse my statement to this effect. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Like the Commissioner I think surveillance of these diseases is fundamentally important and that is why I am concerned that there should not be a gap. As rapporteur for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, I know we are not going to have this up and running before 2005 at the most optimistic estimate, so it is the gap between now and then that I am concerned about. Of course, the centre will not deal with cancer as it is not a communicable disease. It will deal with the other two mentioned. I know the Commissioner has been looking for solutions to cancer, because he has discussed that with our committee in the past. Nevertheless, I ask him to look very carefully at the organisations who have been doing the surveillance – particularly on tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS – and see how they can be supported over the coming two years. We are faced with a double problem in this area: one, as the Commissioner mentioned, is the exponential rise in cases in Eastern Europe, and the second is the fearsome rise we are now seeing, here and across the Atlantic, in a number of newly-diagnosed cases which are multi-drug resistant. Potentially, there is thus a dual crisis attacking us from both sides.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the context of the long-suffering continent of Africa and, in particular, for the whole subcontinent of southern Africa, the Republic of South Africa stands out as a crucial factor for political stability and for development. Today, with even greater importance given the extremely serious crisis in which neighbouring Zimbabwe has become entangled. The Republic of South Africa proves that there is a way forward for Africa, that there is an alternative to poverty, to underdevelopment, to war, despotism, corruption and poor governance. We are, nevertheless, familiar with the problems affecting the Republic of South Africa, such as the extremely high incidence of AIDS, the very high level of unemployment, the poverty and the serious social inequalities, economic stagnation and the terrifying level of violent crime. I must reiterate the genuinely tragic effects of violent crime suffered by the South African people, particularly women, as well as the communities of immigrants from Europe. The Republic of South Africa will not be able to overcome the enormous challenges it faces without the support and the solidarity of the international community. We are pleased to note that the European Union is playing an important role in this area, to the extent that is provides, together with its Member States, 70% of international aid. The European Union’s cooperation with the Republic of South Africa has a projected budget for the period until 2006 of around E 180 billion, that is around EUR 9.02 billion, to which we can add an equal amount of funding from the EIB, the main aims being to combat poverty, to encourage economic and social development, to create jobs, to stimulate the private sector and to consolidate democracy and the rule of law. It is nevertheless crucial that under this cooperation, new actions are planned and that measures already in place that have a direct impact in terms of fighting crime are improved, such as measures for providing the police with organisational and institutional support and support for the modernisation and improvement of the judicial system. We hope that this ambitious cooperation programme, which must be implemented down to the very last euro, will prove decisive in helping the Republic of South Africa to overcome the serious problems it faces.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the main proposition of the Bourlanges report involves increasing the budget by EUR 700 million to finance what he calls the four priorities, with, first and foremost, aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo. I am in favour of aid for Kosovo. But financing for the reconstruction of Kosovo, and indeed Serbia, where the fate of the population seems not to be of interest to the European institutions, should be taken out of the military budget of the powers responsible for the destruction. The humanitarian arguments which we have heard serve mainly to hide the fact that EUR 500 million of public money, supposedly earmarked for Kosovo, only serve to make profits for big business in the private sector, especially building firms and public works contractors. The Members of Lutte ouvrière and the Ligue communiste révolutionnaire have no intention of sanctioning the European budget either directly or indirectly. This budget reflects the fundamental orientation of the European institutions, responsible for facilitating the activities of the large capitalist groups, including in the areas which are most damaging to society, such as the redundancy plans which are responsible for the gravity of the unemployment situation and the spread of poverty. On the subject of internal policies, since the Bourlanges report establishes priorities, the first priority should be to prevent all the redundancy plans announced by Renault-Nissan, Alsthom, Rhône-Poulenc, Hoechst-Marion-Roussel and many others. This is the only way to oppose the rise in unemployment effectively without it taking a single penny from the budget.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the results of the first round of the presidential elections, which were held on 16 December 2001 in Madagascar, have been the subject of great controversy and conflict between the two leading candidates, namely the outgoing president, Didier Ratsiraka, and his rival Marc Ravalomanana. It is claimed that Mr Ratsiraka has rigged the election results and his intentions remain a mystery. He is not stepping down and his silence is leading to fears of violent actions being carried out by his supporters. Although the Ministry of Home Affairs attributes only a small majority to Mr Ravalomanana, he is claiming to have won the first round and is calling for the second round to be cancelled. However, the official results mean that the two men must face one another in a second round and the international community is hoping and praying that it will be organised. Mr Ravalomanana appears to enjoy the support of the people, as hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in his favour, bringing the country to a standstill with a general strike and claiming victory over the opposition. This strike is having disastrous consequences for Madagascar’s economy, and last week cost between USD 8-10 million. The losses incurred, following 10 days of strike action, have already exceeded Madagascar’s annual education budget. Let there be no misunderstanding about this. This is not a question of us supporting one candidate over another, and I have no more sympathy for Mr Ravalomanana than Mr Ratsiraka. What could be a cause for concern for the future are his autocratic tendencies, which came to the fore when he was the capital’s mayor, and if elected, Madagascar’s power would be in his hands. Human rights supporters are becoming disillusioned. But what we need, first and foremost, is respect for democracy and the Rule of Law. That is why it is essential that the two candidates agree to the ballot being checked and that the High Constitutional Court agrees to compare the results. This comparison is the only democratic means of establishing the real results of the ballot. The Commission must do everything in its power to resolve this conflict, which is pulling the country apart, but also to help in establishing a genuine Rule of Law. The conflict must be resolved with respect for human, political and civil rights, but also for political pluralism. Respect for fundamental principles is essential in consolidating the democratic process.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in the spring, the Council took a clear stance in favour of the Stability and Growth Pact. Around the summer recess, a few finance ministers considered it necessary to express as their own personal opinion the fact that more scope was required in the Pact as a result of a declining economy. This was apparently not an official government view because the requirements were not repeated on the platforms eminently placed to deal with this, including the ECOFIN Council. Quite the reverse, in fact. On those occasions, warm words were spoken about the Pact. Despite these fine words, President Duisenberg considered the talk of relaxing the rules very worrying. Commissioner Solbes Mira even addressed Italy, France, Germany and Portugal in a stern manner and urged them to translate the agreements into action. And he is right. It is not acceptable for governments repeatedly to adopt a high tone and demand reductions in the interest rate from the Central Bank when they have failed to do their own homework. If all Member States, when economic growth allowed for this, had taken the required structural measures, the Central Bank would now be able to be more flexible in its interest policy. After all, there is a direct link between the budgetary policy and the interest policy in the policy mix. Various MEPs have spoken about 11 September and Mr Herzog even went so far as to claim that the euro does not protect us against financial crises. I think he is very much mistaken. After 11 September, the Central Bank took action in an admirable manner and has most definitely shielded us from a financial cash crisis. Some time ago, Ireland was severely punished when it gave another stimulus to an almost overheated economy, contributing further to high inflation. As far as I am concerned, Ireland might serve as an example, but we should also be courageous, and level criticism at large countries. We should especially target those countries that fully deserve the criticism. And let us be aware of the fact that the financial markets are closely monitoring the way in which the Member States are currently handling their government budgets in a declining economy. The current situation is a test of how sound the euro construction really is.

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Union is based on the four freedoms. When we carried out the Swedish referendum on EU membership, the yes-camp won due to the optimism which the citizens felt regarding the four freedoms. With this enlargement, the new candidate countries will have a period of quarantine in terms of a person’s freedom to seek work in the various Member States. Allowing current Member States to decide on access to this freedom has devolved one of the Union’s most fundamental rights to Member States. Generosity will vary. The nationalisation of existing Union rights breaches the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and should not be implemented. No one wants to introduce internal border protection within the Union. Alien constructs like this risk watering down the fundamental freedoms.

Political group: PPE-DE