GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The Nice Summit has sadly become known as a further step in the militarisation of the European Union and as a major threat to the sovereignty of the small- and medium-sized countries like Portugal, which, in general, are losing power and the ability to influence decisions. Those who see their power strengthened are the large countries, especially Germany, France and the United Kingdom, which, in practice, can wreck any decision by forming a blocking minority. This situation is exacerbated by the extension of decision making by qualified majority, under which, in certain circumstances, only 14 countries can make decisions on behalf of the 27 or 28, thus, in practice, eliminating the right of veto on policies that are highly important for Portugal, such as the Structural Funds or commercial policy agreements. In addition, Portugal also loses members in the European Parliament, because, although the 700 barrier will have been passed for a European Union with 27 Member States, the number of Members per state will be reduced, and this will affect certain countries, including Portugal in particular. Lastly a mention of social policy, which France had backed when it opened its Presidency, but which ended up amounting to very little, apart from the declarations of intent and the titles of documents with very vague contents which clearly did not match up to the existing problems and the enormous discontent, of which the workers’ demonstration in Nice was also a major expression.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like, in my turn, and this time on behalf of the , to thank Professor Trakatellis for his excellent report and for his particularly productive and effective collaboration with the notional rapporteurs, and in this case, believe me, that is not just a formality. He has succeeded in extracting from the 57 amendments our essential concerns, as expressed by our vote on the occasion of the first reading. Above all, I should just like to say that I am glad that he has abandoned the idea of creating a European centre for the coordination and monitoring of public health. On this point, I would just like to remind the House that the supports Amendment Nos 34 and 57 which, more prudently, are evidently intended to strengthen that coordination and also Community integration at the level of the various existing public health networks, under the auspices of the Commission. At a more fundamental level, of course, there are still points on which we disagree with the Council: first of all its refusal to include in the enacting terms any mention of a specific disease, any explicit reference to patients’ rights, or the methods of action for preventing diseases. Amendment Nos 16, 22 and 47 are essential. They emphasise the importance of a policy of prevention and epidemiological monitoring. Finally, thanks to Amendment Nos 3, 26 and 42, the rights of young and adult patients are finally laid down in a Community programme. The second point on which we disagree is the budget, on which Parliament has already made numerous efforts to reach a compromise with the Council. The EUR 380 million which we had adopted at the time of the first reading in plenary session, on 4 April, is in our view the minimum minimorum. Moreover, as far as the budgetary aspect is concerned the Council’s position is to my mind somewhat paradoxical. It has drastically reduced the budget to EUR 280 million, and at the same time it intends to open up this programme to the candidate and associated countries. There is a problem here. Should it be necessary to remind the House, as our rapporteur has done, that health is one of the most important concerns of the citizens of Europe? Food safety issues, changed attitudes in the face of the AIDS scourge, for example, or the threat of biological terrorism, remind us that the human race is not immune from outbreaks of new viruses or the reappearance of former pandemics. This fully justifies an appropriate budget for the next six years. The citizens – and I am just about to finish, Madam President – the citizens, the Members that represent them, and the Commission, all insist on that budget, in order to ensure that health is not sacrificed on the altar of budgetary dogmatism.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I note your statement and believe that you are correct, both in terms of process and under our Rules of Procedure. I simply think it is important that the President of this Parliament naturally has the right to convene the Conference of Presidents. However, the Conference of Presidents – and this is why I have risen again – can only accept information from the President of Parliament again; it has no right to make any further amendments to any decisions announced this morning by the President. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was present yesterday and I signed the register but my name does not appear in the Minutes. I should like that to be corrected.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am aware of the efforts being made by Mr Vitorino to achieve concrete measures for the control of illegal immigration throughout the European Union and especially in these outermost regions such as the Canary Islands. The problem is that the situation is deteriorating, it is getting worse all the time, and an increasing number of immigrants are entering our regions. And not only are they entering illegally by sea on boats, but they are also coming by air, in other words, many immigrants are coming to our region from other countries without any control whatsoever. I have taken note of his observations. He referred to Morocco, but he said absolutely nothing about Mauritania; and I do not know whether the Commission is aware, for example, of the discovery of an illegal immigration network operating in Mauritania and on Spanish territory, and acting jointly. My concern is that, while I think it is right to carry out studies, I have the impression that the Council is not currently supporting the initiatives of Commissioner Vitorino, aimed at a rapid solution to this problem.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Fiori’s report on genetics marks an important stage in the European and international debate on a sensitive, far-reaching issue which demands close attention in the political world because of the responsibilities it involves. Science must make progress and move forwards, and we only know a tiny fraction of what there is to know, not least about the cells we are talking about. That does not, however, mean that anything goes: just as freedom is, in itself, an absolute value but is never absolute because of the way things are, so science and scientific research are vital assets because of the important discoveries that can be put at the service of human kind but they cannot be considered absolute, that is to say, removed from legal, ethical or moral constraints. The position of the European Republicans, the Democrats and the Italy of values thus coincides with the position expressed in the vote on the Caudron report: it rejects human cloning and genetic manipulation but supports the priority funding of research on adult stem cells and embryo stem cells derived from spontaneous and therapeutic abortions, subject to strict public control. Ladies and gentlemen, the great area of debate between bioethics and law has been opened up, but it should not be approached from moralistic positions because the distinction is not between progressive secular people and conservative Catholics, that is a black-and-white, simplistic view, but rather between those who believe that science should be allowed to do anything, even if it goes against the dignity of life, and those who believe that that should not be possible. Our thanks, in any case, go to Mr Fiori: we believe that his is an important piece of work, especially if our major amendments are accepted; it will be a good basis for reflection from now onwards and for preventing major discoveries from becoming patented property for the use and consumption of the powerful rather than being placed at the service of all human kind.

Political group: ELDR
The first thing that I would like to say is that the 1993 directive on working conditions is quite inadequate and leaves room for all sorts of excesses. Nevertheless, the legal grounds speak of the need to harmonise social conditions with progress. I deduce from this then that the overall aim is to bring working conditions into line with those of the more advanced countries of the European Union. Now, forty-eight working hours per week, just one day of rest per week and an eleven hour break between two working days are proposals which already fall short of the gains made in some Member States. This directive leaves room for all kinds of exemptions, which make the situation even worse and as a result, it is not acceptable. If it is extended to railway and airline employees, it would even constitute a step backwards, as the legislation in some Member States is more advanced. It is absolutely essential that measures which are favourable to workers and which are in force in certain European countries are not abandoned under any pretext and that includes on the grounds of competition in particular. In France, for example, where women’s night work is very strictly regulated, no European directive should have jeopardised this right which, on the contrary, should have been extended to all European working women.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Böge and Mr Brok and the other Members who helped to produce these reports. They are important reports with which I identify. I have also listened with great interest to what Mr de Miguel and Commissioner Verheugen have said. I would like to focus on the factors which might have been slightly overlooked. One of these is the approval of the Irish referendum; we must endeavour to work out what might happen in the future. If it is not approved, which I am sure nobody wants, we cannot tell the candidate countries, after all their efforts, that it was just a joke. This is undeniably an historic opportunity for Europe to be reconciled with its past. It is clear that a response needs to be found in any case and it is right that we reflect on this. The other factor is the cost of enlargement, which should be compared with the cost of not going through with enlargement. Anyone who thinks that enlargement does not involve higher costs has quite frankly not done his sums properly. Clearly, we also need to make the public understand the reasons behind some of our decisions. The issue of upstream decisions, with which our citizens are quite unfamiliar and to which they are largely opposed, was mentioned just now, and rightly so. Here, however, greater effort may be needed on the part of all the European institutions, not just Parliament and the Commission, for it is unthinkable that enlargement should be reduced to merely the opening or closure of a set of dossiers. It is a decision that must have the backing of our fellow citizens but it is an opportunity which we cannot consider rejecting if we genuinely want positive developments for the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the British Labour Members did not support this report. We do not support the extension of the marketing scheme for nuts. We recognise, however, that production is commonly found in less-favoured areas, principally in Spain, and that much of the production is barely competitive and brings little economic return. For these reasons it would make more economic sense to support the affected regions by a comprehensive programme for alternative crops or other activities that could be financed through the Rural Development Programme. Our vote accordingly urges the Commission to bring forward proposals to this effect. We realise that these views are not universally popular but believe that they should ultimately result in a higher standard of living for the people affected. This is preferable to continued subsistence living and uncertain financial provision from CAP funds.

Political group: PSE
For public opinion and the media, Stockholm had all the hallmarks of a routine summit. In fact, had it not been for the announcement of the joint Franco-German decision to postpone setting a deadline for the full liberalisation of the energy market until there is greater mastery of all the consequences and all the effects, the summit would certainly have been overlooked by the newspapers and TV. It was an important summit in economic and social terms, however, and entirely in line with the Lisbon Summit, with the reaffirmation of the need to take action to secure full employment and skilled jobs in Europe. As it turns out, those guidelines have immediately run up against the brutal announcement of redundancy plans at Danone and Marks and Spencer, with no consultation and without even having any genuine economic reasons. Veritable ‘dictatorship’ by the stock exchange and frenzied profit-seeking to the detriment of employees, when they are in fact the prime wealth creators, has demonstrated – to anyone who did not already know – what a vast gap there is between the soothing speeches of politicians and the reality experienced by employees on the ground. So unless we want to acknowledge the death of the European social model, we cannot stand by and do nothing, and personally, since 31 March, I have been lobbying the highest European and French authorities to propose measures to end this diabolical spiral. I am now waiting, like many in this Chamber, for precise and relevant responses. If these are not forthcoming, there will be no point in organising any summits on employment and social policy in the future. In the meantime, I support Francis Wurtz’s proposal to create an ad hoc structure within the European Parliament, a sub-committee or observatory to monitor and analyse the adjustment strategies that powerful economic groups base entirely on staff reductions. There should be a European summit on this vital issue for the equilibrium and future of Europe, in the course of 2001. That is the spirit in which I have voted today for the joint resolution tabled by the left.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish also, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, to express my sympathy with those affected by the events in Galicia. We all feel powerless. I myself looked at the web site where all vessels are supposed to be listed and looked for the vessel Prestige. It is not there, even though it ought to be. I would ask you to convey to the Commission that we too wish to know about the part played by Latvia in what has happened. I also want our Latvian colleagues to comment on the matter so that we obtain a debate, for the vessel was on the way from Latvia to Gibraltar. I also believe that these countries should comply with current standards. At the same time, I would ask the Commission to find out the name of the charterer. I have tried to find it in the newspapers. It is a piece of information we need if we are to be able to monitor developments. In the light of previous interventions, I want to point out that Wednesday is the day when we celebrate the rights of the child. I think that we should celebrate together and that greetings should be sent to Carol Belami.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the speed with which the Commission has put forward the proposals to set up a solidarity fund and the promptness with which our institution is able to respond to them. By this, we are showing that the European Union is reactive and responds to the concerns of its citizens. I also welcome the fact that the recommendations that the European Parliament is preparing to make emphasise an important point, namely an emergency fund, the aim of which is to provide essential relief items to those affected. The mechanisms for releasing the appropriations which are put in place as well as the timeframes specified must, as a necessity, take into account this specific point. European money must arrive quickly on the ground in order to assist victims at the time when they need it most. Because the aim of this Fund is to demonstrate in practical terms the solidarity of Europe's citizens towards disaster victims, many Members of Parliament and I myself would like the intervention thresholds to be more generous and to take into account regional characteristics. It is now the Council’s responsibility to tackle this point. I believe, however, that if Parliament insists that flexible qualitative criteria be taken into account when releasing funds, it must be heard. It is possible that a disaster destroying poor regions of the Union, the outermost regions for example, or which completely devastates a territory, as has happened recently in the South of France, will not be able to benefit from European solidarity, because of nothing more than accounting reasons. I must say that, personally speaking, I believe it is essential that natural disasters are handled separately and as a priority, because, in this case, it is impossible to identify who is responsible and therefore to claim insurance. It is in these cases that European funds are most needed. As a final, very brief, point, I would like to reiterate that repairs must go hand in hand with the implementation of a genuine policy of prevention and that of a European civil protection force, in order to give rapid assistance to those European citizens who are in the most difficulty.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, are these two issues, the destruction of a heritage and the systematic oppression of women, really unrelated? I would like to highlight these two points in our joint resolution. ‘Heritage’ is not the right word to use because of its significance. I would prefer to take up the distinction made two days ago in a daily newspaper by a French philosopher, Jean Luc Nancy, between the symbol and the idol. The symbol represents the human being, whose capacity for truth will never be extinguished. The nature of the symbol in this case are statues which also serve as idols. The idol is the total yet limited presence of the symbol itself. It is perhaps the inverse representation of the symbol. But, in both cases, the symbol and the idol merge into the image and the ability of the human being to transcend itself. In terms of both nature and symbol, women in Afghanistan are totally deprived. Let me explain what I mean by deprivation. Rather than describe it, I will talk about it in the appropriate terms. The word ‘discrimination’ in our joint resolution, as in the Council joint declaration of January and the texts of the UN and of the international institutions, disturbs me because discrimination operates in a space where a common minimum is allowed for there to be discrimination. Discrimination is a natural corollary of exclusion. Here we have women who are denied access to employment and education and who are excluded from public life. This is called rejection. These are the words we must use. I find it hard to believe that hanging and public beatings are the result of discrimination. I should like to point out that I believe we have become mired in a form of language, which I do not find very suitable and, as Members of the European Parliament, we must be very careful about this. This is because behind all this, all these words, behind this international language, which uses the same words to describe democracy in the West and for our Western democracies as it does to describe what is happening in Afghanistan, lies our capacity for doing anything at all. Who is protecting the Taliban? Who is supporting them? Pakistan. Who is protecting them? Do I have to answer? Can you answer with me? Why did we go to fight against Saddam Hussein? Why have we imposed sanctions against Iraq? Why do we not take sanctions against Afghanistan?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to know whether you have already had an answer from the Council and the Commission, given that I heard their remarks, which did not mention the events that took place on the Portuguese-Spanish border and which prevented Portuguese demonstrators from going to Seville and which included acts of violence against some people, including members of the Portuguese parliament. (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, paragraph 9 of the text in the Spanish version reads 'apliquen este problema [apply this problem]' referring to the transposition of the Community acquis. I believe that it intended to say that this problem should be resolved as soon as possible. It is clearly a linguistic error and I would like it to be noted, as well as the other two, which are more important.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honour for me, as president of the French delegation within the Group, to take the floor on the day that the French Presidency of the European Union presented its priorities. In his speech last week in the Reichstag in Berlin, which was universally recognised as historic, the President-in-Office of the Council opened up new perspectives for the French Presidency, and also, I hope, for the presidencies which are to follow. He not only asked the real questions as to why we should build Europe, who should be involved, and how it should be done, he also provided answers key to the future of a European Union embarking on an unprecedented enlargement. To those who prefer to focus only on the short-term but certainly essential reforms that are awaiting the French Presidency and that must result in the future Treaty of Nice next December, I shall respond that these major reforms will only be achieved successfully if they are guided not only by modern European history, but also by an ambitious and realistic vision of what the Europe of tomorrow must be – a strong, democratic and free Europe that carries some weight in the eyes of the world. We all know that in order to meet the considerable challenges which Europe faces today, we shall together have to work out how to clearly define our plan for Europe, all together. We must be grateful to the President-in-Office of the Council for having had both the courage and boldness to encourage our partners to engage in discussions but also to suggest the guidelines for these. Our fellow citizens await a Europe which at last has the determination to review its modus operandi and to strive to achieve greater clarity, greater transparency and greater efficiency. The reforms of the Commission and the Council must respond to these requirements. We must keep in mind that, even if it is not an easy task, France and its partners are under an obligation to achieve results. We must reach an agreement, and a good one at that. Far from clouding the issue, today’s debate has offered some clarification as to the direction of the action to be undertaken in the months and years to come, which I shall sum up as follows: bringing Europe closer to the citizens, all the citizens without exception, be they close to the decision-making centres or remote, economic modernisation and a social Europe, efficiency and a strong presence in the world. I have every confidence in Jacques Chirac, President-in-Office of the Council, and in his ability, along with our partners within the European Union, to meet these historic challenges. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
The right of ownership is a fundamental prerequisite of the market economy. The fundamental prerequisite of the control that will take place though the directive on takeover bids must be respect for the right of ownership. For many years in Sweden, we have had a system that works, involving a division into A and B shares. The control to be carried out must provide an opportunity to retain this system.

Political group: PPE-DE