GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, so many words have been spoken in praise of Mr Bösch that it is hard to know what to say. I think he knows how highly I rate his work. I would therefore like to comment on a few points that have been mentioned in the debate. The first point is that we welcome the fact that the OLAF report on the Fléchard case was submitted last week, something that has not yet been mentioned. This is a positive point that should be take into account in further discussions. This report does not establish or seek to establish what the European Parliament's view on this case is. That is part of the budget discharge process, which will be on our agenda in a month's time. Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to give the Commission some sound advice. It would certainly be very helpful for the discussions on the budget discharge if the Commission could reconsider the views it has already expressed on this case, and take advantage, for example, of the opportunity presented to it next week by the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control. That could certainly assist the subsequent deliberations in the context of the budget discharge process. There are also two other points in some way connected with misunderstandings. Mr Mulder mentioned one misunderstanding, and I think Mr Seppänen's speech was a case in point: there is some confusion between irregularities and fraud. We must make it clear in this report, on the basis of the amendment tabled by Mr Bösch himself and supplemented by Mr Mulder's amendment, that we do not want to see these categories being muddled up. I would like to clarify this in the light of one particular example: Mr Seppänen's speech. In it, he literally referred to the Fléchard case as an irregularity, and then connected it with the Court of Auditors' failure to give a positive statement of assurance concerning the Commission's budget management. If we do this we are mixing things up and run the risk of giving our visitors in the public gallery the impression that even a bookkeeping error would be classified as fraud. No one can have any political interest in doing that. We must make sure that these two things are not confused. The second possible misunderstanding is not a misunderstanding amongst ourselves, but rather a misunderstanding outside this Chamber, regarding the flax affair. As I understand it, the decision-making process in one Member State was described by the Committee on Budgetary Control as if responsibility had been shifted from national to regional level. On behalf of my group I would like to say that regardless of the internal organisation of the individual Member States, we want to ensure that responsibility towards the European Union at national level for the correct implementation of EU programmes is respected.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to inform Parliament of a serious initiative undertaken last week in Italy by the regional government of the Lazio region. The regional government has established a committee to monitor the history textbooks used in schools. The committee is to ascertain the extent to which these texts are influenced by Marxism – as the neo-fascists who are in power in Lazio say. The fact is that these texts merely present the history of Italy, of the Second World War, of nazism and fascism, on the assumption that it is clear that the values for which the resistance and the antifascists were fighting and the ideas motivating Hitler and Mussolini cannot be regarded as equal. This is an extremely serious initiative towards reintroducing censorship in Italy, limited to text books for the moment but which will soon be extended to other areas. Since the allegedly liberal parties, including the European liberal parties, always tend to ally themselves with parties of xenophobic, racist, authoritarian inspiration, I feel that this is not only a serious danger for Italy, but also an indication of something which concerns the whole of Europe. I would ask the Members to sign a petition which I am circulating, which also bears the signatures of other European intellectuals.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Newton Dunn on his report and for the ease with which the committee has taken on board all sorts of suggestions. We consider the Commission’s initiative to be an important one. Nevertheless, I must point out that, although in our Group, the Confederal Group of the , there is, understandably, no single point of view on this issue, the majority of us are in favour of this rapid reaction force. We believe that it is important, that it must be established as a European Community policy, and that greater emphasis must be placed on conflict prevention as part of Europe’s contribution to peace. We would therefore have liked to have seen greater funding allocated, and better coordination between the various applicable programmes to improve their effectiveness, as well as greater co-responsibility when it comes to the eventual – and sometimes, unfortunately, necessary – military intervention, which would perhaps not become necessary if the earlier stages were carried out properly.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, one of the most basic aims of the European Union’s stability and association agreement with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is to establish stability and peace in the area, and this, of course, presupposes developing and maintaining good neighbourly relations between the countries involved. I shall not bother you with details of the problem concerning the name FYROM, which as you must know, is the subject of a difference of opinion with Greece and of negotiations between the two countries lasting over four years, under the aegis of the Secretary General of the UN in the context of related Security Council resolutions, but also the conventional obligation of the respective parties pursuant to Article 5 of the so-termed Intermediate Agreement of 1995. I do, however, think it appropriate to say that, at the forthcoming negotiations and with the conclusion of the association agreement, the European side must point out to the Skopje government the need for it to show appropriate constructive political will, so that it may contribute positively to a successful outcome of the talks in New York. I should like to hope that such an appeal from Europe, with parallel emphasis on the difficulties that any further indecision would create for completing and implementing the association agreement, would be duly heeded and appraised accordingly by the Skopje government, so that it can respond appropriately, on the one hand, to Greece’s demonstrably conciliatory attitude concerning the specific issue, and, on the other hand, to the more general practical, declared intention and disposition of all the partners in the European Union, including Greece, to facilitate and support FYROM’s progress towards a United Europe. Mr President, this is because I do not think that the harmonious day to day relations, contacts and communication between FYROM and Greece that have actually been achieved at both bipartite and multipartite level, and this mainly thanks to the practical arrangements of the intermediate agreement, I repeat, I do not think these sufficiently cover the conditions and criteria of good neighbourliness necessary, inter alia, for negotiating and concluding an association agreement. On the contrary, I think that this demand can only be considered satisfied by a de jure full normalisation of FYROM’s relations with all its neighbours. That, combined with the essential improvement of certain aspects of the internal situation in that country, in the area of minorities and democratic institutions, would round off the image of political maturity which FYROM has, in fact, presented in other respects and which has made our European family welcome closer relations with it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this White Paper between ourselves is worth more than all the recent grandstanding speeches of national leaders, because it combines clarity of purpose with a substantial degree of self-criticism. President Prodi has drawn attention to the paradox that people want the Union to be doing more in several fields but they still distrust the system of government. The Commission is therefore quite right to focus on improving the Commission's representative capacity, especially at the pre-legislative stage. I would also want a strong emphasis on improving the post-legislative phase, monitoring far more closely the way European policies are put into effect on the ground. My group welcomes the Commission's emphasis on decentralised management and on a reinforced role for the regions. The European region plays a vital part as the intermediary between the citizen and the supranational authorities. We also note the kind suggestion that Parliament feeds into the European system the views of its own electors. What else we are up to, I am not quite sure. But the place that we intend to do this is in the new convention that we trust will be set up at Laeken, a concept that strangely receives not a single mention throughout the entire White Paper. Would Mr Prodi agree that the White Paper will be a most sensible contribution to the work of that convention? Would he say exactly the way he sees the furtherance of the work on the White Paper fitting in with that of the convention?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my thanks first of all to the Commissioner and my congratulations on his excellent work. When we arrived in the summer of 1999 at the start of our term of office, we arrived together with the Helsinki decision marking the unification of the procedure for integrating the new countries, the single wave. Today, as our term of office nears its end, this circle is being successfully closed and this is something which is very, very serious and important for the whole of Europe. The two months left are little time. Today we are exercising our criticism of the new countries as colleagues, not as observers and advisers. In this sense, I, as the official rapporteur for Lithuania, wish to confirm the important positive job which has been done in this country and helped it progress, so that in two months it will be in a position to become a fully fledged member of the European Union. There are problems, as in all the new countries. However, serious problems have been resolved, such as, for example, the issue of Kaliningrad, relations with the Russian Federation, the problem of the nuclear power station in Ιgnalina and the problem of regional cooperation. What do we need to do? We need to support this effort. To support environmental issues, to support the strengthening of the trans-European networks in the field of energy and in the field of transport, so that these countries are integrated more fully into the European structures. As I have another identity (I am from an island in the Mediterranean, Crete), it would be an oversight on my part if I failed to mention the integration of the European Union in the Mediterranean with Cyprus and Malta. This circle is closing and it is closing in an exceptional manner. I hope, on the basis of what the Commissioner said to us earlier, that the relevant position of the European Union is constant, so that when Cyprus becomes a member of the European Union and the Cypriot question has been resolved, which we hope it will, the acquis communautaire can be applied 100% to all policies in the whole of reunited Cyprus. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, while welcoming this regulation, our group has a proposal to make regarding these two reports by Mr Morillon which are about to be put to the vote. This proposal arises from the importance which the Helsinki Summit will assume with regard to the consideration of Turkey as a candidate country. While issues like the death penalty, in particular that imposed on the Kurdish leader, Mr Öçalan, are still pending, I would request the referral back to committee of both reports so that the Turkish Government can give a positive signal to the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the European educational programmes need only to be developed further rather than needing to be replaced by new ones is a point in their favour, especially in an age of globalisation and technological change. They have proved their worth in such a way, and have been so successful, that we only have to adapt them to the new structures. The structure of eLearning is the same as in the example we were given earlier, Erasmus Mundus. We are all familiar with the Comenius programme within the great Socrates programme framework, which is about cooperation between at least three schools from different Member States. This programme is extraordinarily successful, achieving a high degree of efficiency with relatively meagre resources and great commitment on the part of both teachers and students. So I think it is tremendous that we have managed to use the eLearning Programme to strengthen this area of technology-supported school partnership. We have, unfortunately, always had to decry the lack of sufficient funds for mobility for existing Comenius schools, and now, thanks to technology, mobility is being multiplied, albeit in the virtual realm. That cannot, and must not, become more than an additional area. Whilst it cannot be a substitute for real encounters between people, it can be an immense help to our schools in building up a real awareness of the Europe that we share. That is why I also enthusiastically welcome our desire to increase the estimate to 40%, and I would like to point out that, quite apart from bridging the digital divide, it is extraordinarily important not to lose sight of the need to develop European software. Of the software used in Europe, 80% originates in the USA. Whilst I am a friend of the Americans in bad times and good, I would like to see a more equal balance in the field of software, and so what I ask of the Council, not only as regards this programme, but also the other technological programmes, is that they keep an eye on the development and enhancement of European software and facilitate the support and promotion that this needs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I just wanted to say something about the Minutes, although it is not yet time for them to be approved. However, it might be possible to make a correction to them already. Yesterday, with Mr Karas’ excellent report, I had intended to vote in favour of paragraph 5, a particularly good one. I accidentally voted against it. I would ask you to correct this.

Political group: PPE-DE
I, together with my colleagues in the British Conservative delegation, am totally committed to the need to have more women playing a full and active part in public life. We share in all expressions of regret that there remains inequality and gender discrimination and especially under-representation of women in politics. However, we are not convinced that one form of discrimination should be countered with another form of discrimination, namely the introduction of quotas to guarantee women elected places. I feel this especially keenly as only on Tuesday evening of this week my 27-year-old daughter, Caroline, was selected as the prospective Conservative candidate for the Southampton Itchen constituency in the United Kingdom. She achieved this position totally on her own merit and in open competition against all-comers. We should not adopt a position that in any way detracts from the position of the increasing number of women who are demonstrating that without fear or favour they can earn their place in public life. For this reason members of my delegation have supported much of the resolution but we registered our opposition to those calls for positive discrimination in favour of women, which we think is the wrong way to make progress, is itself demeaning to women and distorts the democratic process and we have therefore abstained in the final vote. - Katiforis report (A5-0041/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to inform the House that, as a substantial rightholder in the audio-visual sector, I have a direct financial interest in the issue before the House and will accordingly be abstaining throughout. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the problem of Iraq seems to have divided the world into two opposing camps. However, the peace demonstrators have stood up in the whole of Europe and throughout the world in order to protest against the strongest military power in the world. Without the backing of the UN Security Council, the United States has attacked Iraq, but we now know that their battle plans had been ready for a long time. We believed that a peaceful solution was possible in Iraq, thanks to the intervention of the inspectors, but the decision had already been taken. All wars in the Middle East have always ended in disaster. Why, then, are we incapable of learning the lessons of history? Our construction of Europe is based on right, rather than might. Yes, but we cannot deny that the European Union is experiencing a real crisis. What is this right that we are talking about? How can we forget Article 11 of the Maastricht Treaty, which compels all Member States to define and implement a common security policy in line with the United Nations Charter? The UN Charter has been flouted. Article 2 of that Charter asks all States to refrain from threatening the territorial or political integrity of any other State or to use force against that integrity. What has happened to our compliance with that article? Does this mean that there is no longer any law, any treaty, or any charter which is able to resist the law of the strongest power? That is a frightening thought. It would be a defeat for democracy, and we do not accept it. This war is a disaster from the moral viewpoint. All the great principles of our civilisation cannot be trampled underfoot in this way. What price will we have to pay for this inability to learn lessons from the past and for the fact that we have delayed too long in building a political Europe that would be capable of facing up to the United States? It is time for us to react if we want a strong and independent Europe. It is time for us to put in place a common defence policy, and it will be necessary for us to provide ourselves with the resources to do so. We need to move, to make the Convention a success and to make our future together a success too.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner and Colleagues, as someone who has worked in and known Rwanda since 1984, as someone born in Tanzania where I lived for many years, as someone speaking the main African language of the Great Lakes region, I speak on this subject with experience and knowledge. Genocide in any country is evil and must be condemned without reservation. Whoever is responsible for such genocide must be indicted, and justice must be seen to be done. There cannot be any immunity for anyone from such prosecution. The International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha must do its work efficiently, and we hope that those doing this work will take measures to bring this process to a just and speedy end. Only four trials have been completed in five years, and this delay has allowed some perpetrators of genocide to go free on technicalities. This is not acceptable. We need to evaluate the work of the tribunal to identify the weaknesses so that we can furnish appropriate assistance to ensure high standards of justice without wasting time and resources. The innocent victims of genocide and conflict cannot wait for ever to rebuild their lives in order to live in peace in their own villages and in their own homes. This resolution, agreed by all political groups in this Parliament, expresses clearly our concerns, hopes and expectations. It is now up to the government of Rwanda and those of neighbouring countries to take serious action to bring about genuine peace in the area. They need to cooperate fully with the EU special envoy, the EU, the United Nations, the OAU and all humanitarian aid agencies in doing what is needed to support peace and stability in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region in general.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, fine words have been spoken about cancelling the enormous debts of a large number of developing countries to mark the millennium, as Mr Van Dam mentioned a moment ago. These speeches were given at the G7 meeting, at the European Summit in Lisbon and at the recent Euro-African Summit in Cairo. The question we are left with today is: what will come of this? We have heard a few examples from the HIPC-I and HIPC-II programmes and I understand that 1 billion is tied up in this second programme. The total debt burden of all developing countries comes to 350 billion. This means that, in comparison, this 1 billion is really peanuts. Many of those countries pay 25% to 40% of their national budget on interest and repayment into banks in Western Europe, the United States and Japan. The harsh reality is that the billions which are paid to repay debts far exceed the development aid. That is a disastrous situation because we often ask ourselves why our development aid does not work. Well, here is one of the most important reasons. If a sum of money comes in and subsequently a sum has to be repaid which is three or four times the original amount, then those countries will not make any headway, of course. One question which remains is: should you cancel debts unconditionally? I do not share the view of Mr Miranda or other MEPs who think one should. In my opinion, conditions should very much be part of the deal. The countries involved should be the poorest ones, to start with. They should have a democratic government and a pluriform parliament which keeps the government in check. The country must fight corruption actively. The countries concerned should not be at war or participate in wars, and an agreed proportion of the budget must really be spent on social schemes for the poorest citizens, and must be invested in education, health care and social security. I do not agree with Mr Da Costa who said a moment ago that this might be somewhat neo-colonial. It was even agreed in Copenhagen, at the Social Summit for developing countries which was held there a while ago, that a proportion was to be spent on those costs. Mr President, we should really call for something to be done about this. We should simply spend 10% of the total development budget on cancelling these debts. If we do nothing, the countries will remain trapped in a downward spiral.

Political group: PPE-DE
Five years ago, the power of the Serb state over Kosovo, which is mainly populated by Albanians, was broken. The predominant memory that the people of Kosovo have of the Serbs is that of soldiers, police, tax collectors, prison wardens, unfriendly officials and unwanted rulers. They do not regard the remaining 5% of Serbs as people who will adopt the Albanian language or adapt in other ways. In fact, this minority is suspected of wanting its old privileged position back. Its position is similar to that of the Turks in Greece and Bulgaria, the Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania and the Russians in the Baltic states, except that the memories in Kosovo are more recent and more bitter. The area which was designated the bilingual autonomous province of Kosovo-Metohia within Serbia after the Second World War, has, in practice, fallen apart into a Serb north – a few scattered Serbian villages under military surveillance – and an otherwise purely Albanian country. The few contacts between Serbs and Albanians result in violent conflict. It should now be about the equality of people and good neighbourly relations. I expect that the Albanians intolerant attitude towards the Serbs, Turks and Roma – which is deplorable – will pass away as soon as they are certain that they can take over the running of the country and will never again be dominated by others. - Boumediene-Thiery report (A5-0207/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL