GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first of all I ask you whether it is right that staff should be sitting on the Council benches laughing and gesticulating. I ask everybody to maintain a respectful attitude towards this House. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe I have always respected the positions of others: I therefore ask you to respect them in the same way. With regard to Mr Barón Crespo, first of all I had already asked to speak before now, my dear sir, but I was not given the floor. I have to say that I fully endorse what I wrote, because in effect, in fact, one only needs to take a precise look at the numbers to see what the situation is. Then, with regard to Mr Cox’s letter in reply, I have also had to write back to him indicating the points in his letter where he recognised that there were serious shortcomings and defects in the report itself. I therefore respect the President’s decision but, I beg you, do not hide behind a problem that does not exist and which, in any case, is not yours, just because you do not want to respond to a specific request by Mr Hernández Mollar. One final point, Mr President: once again I accept the vote of this House, the vote that you, Mr President, have had taken here today. If, however, we read the Rules of Procedure, it is not up to the House to decide when or how a particular vote should be taken: it is your direct responsibility. As far as I am concerned, then, you asked for advice and then decided independently. It is not the House that can decide on such matters. You should all, please, read the Rules of Procedure and study them. Mr Barón Crespo, the Rules of Procedure are not something from which you can pick and choose; therefore let the person who has the floor and is democratically elected and represents here the citizens of this ... Mr President, I think there is always someone amongst us who has discovered democracy too late and who perhaps, therefore, is not familiar either with its rules or with its deeper meaning. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am concerned for the pensioners of Bulgaria, and not just because I am the representative of the Pensioners’ Party and a member of the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee. The Bulgarian pensioners fought in the Second World War, they lived under the yoke of communism for very many years, and now that they are old, living on miserly pensions, they hope that their quality of life will improve when they too become part of the European Union in a short while. I therefore wonder, and I would like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council and the President of the Commission, whether, seeing as the Stability and Growth Pact too has to be interpreted intelligently and flexibly, is there any hope that the decision of the Community organs to defer Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union until 2007 might be reviewed? And, above all, is there a possibility that the decision to close units of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant within the set time frame might be reviewed, allowing Bulgaria to keep them in operation for a little longer in view of the enormous harm their closure will do to the Bulgarian economy? Lastly, would it be possible to reflect on the need to proceed swiftly with and put more funding into the development of corridor 8, linking Puglia to Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria and terminating in Varna and Burgas?

Political group: PPE-DE
Members of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party in the European Parliament are abstaining from voting in favour of the report on the situation in the South Caucasus. We support Amendment No 2 from Mr Duff and others which urgently calls upon Turkey and Armenia to cooperate in resolving their historic disagreements with a view to improving their cultural, economic and diplomatic links.

Political group: ELDR
I voted against the resolution, believing as I do that this is the worst conceivable time for us to resume a debate on the Members' Statute. At present, the European Union has essential and fundamental tasks to deal with. In the immediate aftermath of a failed summit, and facing all the problems of European integration, we in this House must limit ourselves to what is essential and necessary. The importance of a common statute means that a solution must be sought together with the Council and without pressure of time.

Political group: PPE-DE
The members of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the report on the accession of Turkey to the ΕU because we believe that it will not benefit the workers and the people of Turkey in general; it will only benefit the Turkish plutocracy and the EU. Many believe that the accession of Turkey will contribute towards its democratisation. That belief led to customs union, to its being proclaimed a candidate country, but not to democratisation. The repression of its people continued, with the gaols full of political detainees in inhumane conditions. Arrests, torture and murder continue. The muzzling of political opposition extends to banning parties such as the Turkish Communist Party and HADEP. DEHAP is about to be banned. The army continues to play a sovereign role and there is the daily threat of a coup d'état. Its militia continue to occupy 37% of Cyprus. The rapporteur does indeed recognise much of the above, but he welcomes the government for its good intentions and proposes speeding up the financing of Turkey with EU taxpayers' money, which will most probably be used to reinforce the repressive mechanisms. We condemn the hypocritical policy of the ΕU, which is based above all on serving big interests and we stand by those fighting, under harsh conditions, for democracy, peace and social progress in Turkey, certain that radical change will come as their fight develops.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I very much support the measures outlined in this report to prevent a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease on the scale experienced in the United Kingdom, and the West Midlands region I represent. Mr Kreissl-Dörfler's report provides important guidelines should future legislation be required to tackle a new outbreak, were it to occur anywhere across the European Union. I do, however, reject a number of the report's observations and conclusions which are incorrect, in particular those relating to the legality of culls, suggested breaches of animal welfare legislation, suggested breaches of environmental legislation and suggested bio-security lapses. Given that farmers have claimed for 6.5 million animals, I also reject the claim that 10 million were killed during the outbreak. Despite the many positive aspects of the report, I will vote against in the light of the above comments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Bowis for this really excellent report. This House welcomes the Commission communication and urges the Commission and the Member States to make their contributions to achieving the Millennium Development Goal of halving by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water, especially given that around three million people die every year from water-borne diseases. If we look at the Commission’s ambitious goals, they deserve Parliament’s full and unequivocal support. The EU has undertaken to reach the development aid target of 0.39% of GDP on average for all EU Member States by 2006. At the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey in March 2002, it was agreed that each of the current EU Member States would by 2006 increase the proportion of GDP spent on development to at least 0.33%. Yet taking the Federal Republic of Germany as an example, we can see that unfortunately, this is likely to remain a utopian ideal. Germany vigorously rejected, to the very last, any increase in spending, claiming that this was incompatible with budget discipline. This shows that ultimately, the Federal Government’s economic policy failures are the cause of inadequate development assistance. Only yesterday, I saw that the German Minister of Development states on her website that 0.27% of GDP is currently allocated to development assistance. This must seem like pure mockery to the people affected, who followed what happened at the World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen as long ago as 1995 and trusted the pledge that 0.7% of GDP would be spent on official development assistance. The only conclusion we can draw is that it is hard luck for anyone who relies on development pledges! It is a sign of political bankruptcy – indeed, it is a political debtor’s oath – that at the same time, real expenditure has decreased by more than 500 million euros from 1990 to 2001. Yet we live in an era when Volkswagen, for example, has to appoint three apprentices to every training place in the developing countries because two out of three die during training, either from Aids or from other – water-borne – diseases. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in Monterrey, and I quote with your permission, Mr President, ‘If the industrialized countries do not double development assistance, the forces of envy, despair and terror will continue to grow’. Let me add to this: these forces will impact on Europe too. That, not least, must be avoided!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my view, the position is very clear following the debate we had yesterday with Commissioner Diamantopoulou and the President-in-Office of the Council, and Parliament should vote on the original text. Hence we withdraw our signature to Amendment No 4.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is not the first time that the right to fish in Moroccan and Saharan waters has been an item on Parliament’s agenda. Spain and Portugal took it for granted that Morocco was obliged to allow European fishermen to fish in its waters, and it was a shock when this came to an end last year. I can well understand why, because this type of fishing was a source of revenue and employment for what is by European standards a poor region. In the past, it was deemed quite natural for the economy to be prized more highly than the protection of the natural balance, and for the poorest people in Europe to try and pinch a few crumbs from Europe’s domination over the third world. We have now reached the stage where parts of the oceans are being fished to the point of exhaustion, and stocks of certain types of fish have declined to such an extent that they are at risk of extinction. Morocco has every right to afford its waters sustainable protection against over-fishing. Europe cannot lay claim to rights in other parts of the world any longer. In future, we will have to learn to live without fishing concessions bequeathed to us by our colonial past. The proposed resolution will not lead to the restoration of fishing rights, but, at best, to Spain and Portugal having a more solid claim to compensation subsidies. I would urge the Commission not to persist in bringing pressure to bear on Morocco, and to be more understanding of Morocco’s complaints. Incidentally, I agree with Mrs McKenna that the Spanish and Portuguese fishermen are not the only villains of the piece. The fishermen in the North, including my country, the Netherlands, must reduce their catches too.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in my view, the problems and issues to be addressed following the Helsinki Summit fall into two basic entities. The first is the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference and it is particularly sad that, following the Helsinki Summit and following the extensive debates held here in the European Parliament, the Presidency conclusions concerning the Intergovernmental Conference are so brief. Perhaps they are not quite as brief as we had feared but they are much briefer than what we consider necessary for the European Union to prepare itself sufficiently for the passage from the 20th to the 21st century. Mr President, it is clear that, this time more than ever, the Intergovernmental Conference and the review of the founding Treaties of the European Union are directly related to another important European Union decision: enlargement. And since the European Union is about to take on board a large number of States – 13 in total – it would make sense to begin preparations to receive these States. The question which arises from the Presidency conclusions is whether or not the commitments, yes the commitments, and the opinions in those conclusions allow the European Union to prepare itself to receive these new States. I am afraid the answer is no. In a number of resolutions, the European Parliament has already indicated how extensive these changes and reforms of the Treaties would have to be. And the European Parliament will, of course, continue to indicate the way forward given that, as I said before, the decisions of the Helsinki Summit on the Intergovernmental Conference are clearly, and unfortunately, far too limited in scope. There was no mention of the direction the European Union should be taking nor of the vision it should have. There was no mention of the approach it should be adopting. There was no mention of a number of new issues which are, if you like, the main goals and problems facing us in the 21st century. As for enlargement, which is clearly a very important process and one which must be continued, integrated and completed, a new candidate country is now involved in this process: Turkey. At this point in time, Turkey has been granted a new status, that of a candidate country. However, at the same time, a number of conditions have been laid down which Turkey must fulfil before it can become a member of the European Union. It is important that these conditions be fulfilled. It is important that Turkey shows, in its desire to become a member of the European family, that it really does respect human rights, democracy and its neighbouring countries and that it truly wishes to find a calm and peaceful solution to any issues or problems which exist in relation to it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Radwan, ladies and gentlemen, what is Basel II about? It is about credit standing and the collateral needed for it. Therefore, our main interest is in how this affects SMEs. After all, they account for two thirds of employees in Europe and pay 80% of taxes. Therefore, we would also call for preparation for the implementation of Basel II with a stability pact for SMEs. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy commissioned STOA to carry out a study. One of the most important findings was that, according to rating procedures, banks required up to 400% more deposit for venture financing and start-ups. This, I believe, should show us that we in the Committee on Budgets should also get involved. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, and jointly with Mr Mulder, the rapporteur, I submitted a proposal for starting a pilot project in this area, which, through the European institutions and the European banks, would support guarantees for SMEs. In particular, guarantees of up to EUR 25 000 should be available for SMEs. We want a package that amounts to tens or hundreds of millions so that we can help small businesses. We also want a training package, especially for finance ministries. Here, as with the Lisbon process, we need to look into what repercussions the tax law will have on various equity capital structures, reserves, funds, depreciation, corporate income tax, provisions on non-profit activities, for example. There is a lot to be checked and I call upon the Commission to look into these issues in their report, which is long overdue, so that the Member States and their ministers can adopt and prepare for Basel II as best as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the first part of my question is crucial; it is absolutely fundamental. Spain’s national hydrological plan absorbs a fundamental part of the Cohesion Fund for that Member State. The Commission’s attitude to this financing is decisive for Spain’s national hydrological plan to be taken forward or not. I believe the Commissioner is aware of this and she should have clarified and explained this decisive point.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, opinion differs in my group as to the proposed enlargement of the European Union. Personally, I see it as an historic necessity and opportunity, which must not be put at risk either by rashness, undemocratic procedures, and bureaucratic or national small-mindedness, or politicians‘ lack of consideration for the social dimension. Commissioner, I do not doubt your personal commitment to enlargement. Yet if you tell us, as you have done today, that we simply misinterpreted the interview, and I then read, in tomorrow‘s edition of die Zeit, your own comments to the effect that the interview was your annual flop, then I am bound to wonder what is going on here! (Applause) I would urge you once again to clarify the situation for us. In July, you dropped some very vague hints about the difficulties. Despite being asked to do so, you were not prepared to be more specific at the time. You are absolutely right to say that the people must be involved in the decision-making processes. But that means of course, that the democratically elected representatives should be given these opportunities too. I believe we must see an end to the excessively secretive brand of diplomacy employed by the Council and the Commission towards Parliament. There is a second problem. I emphatically support your view that national governments must not overwhelm the people with existential decisions, as happened – I would agree with you on this point – in the case of the euro. But a German referendum must never be allowed to determine the weal and woe of enlargement. That would be insensitive and unacceptable to my mind. Aside from that, you will receive our unswerving support if you are serious about democratic participation. However, I also recall that you yourself dismissed out of hand the idea of having a referendum on the Treaty of Maastricht, in Germany at the time. Thirdly – and this is the most important point – if we are to win the people’s support for enlargement and accession then their hopes and fears must be taken very seriously. As I see it, there is more to this than launching a PR campaign costing EUR 150 million; it means highlighting the democratic, social and employment dimensions of enlargement. There has been precious little sign of this so far, either in the debate on a Charter of Fundamental Rights, in EU reform undertakings, or in the accession negotiations. Commissioner, please use your considerable and acknowledged ability to help make eastward enlargement a project for joint security and social solidarity, and one that can be jointly decided on and shaped by the people of Europe. Then you will have us all on your side.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as far as I know, given how times are allocated, I shall not have a chance to speak. If you wish to arrange for us to be given even just a minute to restate these questions, then gladly.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, questions of the safety of sea transport and the protection of the maritime environment have been very much to the fore for just over a year now in the wake of the Erika disaster. Although the wreck of the Erika was a catastrophe for European shipping, the accident also had some very positive consequences. The publicity surrounding the disaster and increased political pressure has resulted in more effective monitoring on the part of the Commission of legislation on shipping. The Commission has also very promptly managed to submit a number of legislative proposals to make shipping safer for discussion by Parliament and the Council. Like the fellow Members before me, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for this active involvement. I also wish to thank you for having taken an initially positive view of the need to create a thematic network with regard to short route navigation, which is a very important initiative on the part of AMRIE. Before Erika the Union already had, and has had most definitely since, acts in place that pretty much cover the whole area of vessel safety and the prevention of pollution from ships. The truth is that the Erika accident would probably never have happened if all the regulations in force at the time had been properly complied with and if, furthermore, that compliance had been monitored correctly. The Commission’s proposal to replace the committees currently dealing with matters of maritime safety with one committee is to be supported. At the same time, responsibility for maritime safety policy will fall more clearly to the new committee being set up. The new committee must monitor and, if necessary, improve the way legislation is implemented and take an active role, on the Union’s behalf, in the IMO and other international organisations. In connection with the amendment to the regulation, the Commission is reserving the right to judge whether any international amendment to the regulations might be harmful to European maritime safety. I also support the Commission’s proposal regarding its proposed procedure in this connection. It is very important, however, as the rapporteur quite rightly points out in his report, that Parliament’s rights to take part in the regulatory procedure should be satisfactorily safeguarded.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with Nelson Mandela’s farewell as President and the election of Thabo Mbeki, South Africa entered a new political era. As one young South African who had grown up in Denmark expressed it, “it is good for South Africa now that Mandela is retiring.” It is not good for a democracy to have a god as President, and Mandela was and remains a deity. But you do not rebel against gods, not in any case when they have just opened the way to freedom. By this, I do not mean that Thabo Mbeki does not have god-like characteristics. What I mean is that the patience shown by the poor towards Nelson Mandela will not be shown towards Thabo Mbeki. They are making demands here and now for food, housing, education, that is to say, all the things which we in the western world take for granted. For the time being, they remain only criminals. Subsequently, they will rise in rebellion. This puts Thabo Mbeki in a quite different situation from his predecessor, but it also puts us in the EU in a quite different situation. We should remember this fact and we should also remember the Balkans and what Kofi Annan said in his speech to the UN at the opening of the General Assembly this year: that it is incredible how much we sacrifice to go to war and how little we sacrifice to prevent war. That is why it is good that we have obtained the present agreement between South Africa and the EU. It is certainly not as good as it ought to be. It is not nearly generous enough, and I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Kinnock, for pointing this out. Nonetheless, it is there and it binds the EU and South Africa together. Hopefully, it will mean that, in South Africa too, it is felt that it is no longer so very far from the EU to South Africa, either physically or psychologically, and that the gap between words and action is no longer so lengthy as, without a shadow of a doubt, it was felt to be in the period after 1994 and up until 1999.

Political group: ELDR