GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am delighted that Vietnam is on the agenda at last. It has taken a long time. I feel that special praise must go to Mr Dupuis for his assiduousness in this respect, because otherwise we might have had to wait even longer. What do we see in Vietnam? We see a country whose people are becoming more liberal whilst the powers that be are old men who cling for dear life to old ways. It is so tragic, because Vietnam is a country with so much potential. It has a dynamic, healthy and well-educated population. It has natural resources such as oil, fish, coffee, rice and timber. You feel like telling those old men to open the door and success will flood in. Instead, we see a complete lack of press freedom and ongoing political oppression. Just look at how the dissident Ha Is Phu was treated. I am fully aware that the Vietnam debate is historically charged. We must be careful what we say about Vietnam, or at least that has been customary hitherto. After all, the West has had a certain level of involvement in the country. It is historically charged and naturally it is an awkward situation. When it comes to human rights, we cannot say whether the glass is half full or half empty. The glass is not full in Vietnam. That is what it is all about. We work with Vietnam; it is our partner, and so we cannot afford to keep our lips sealed about the situation there.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, one of the joys of spending time in Belgium and France is the pleasure of these countries' chocolate. It is wonderful, but millions of people in Europe also enjoy the British product. None of them come to any harm in the process. Whatever its content they are happy to call this product chocolate. It is insulting for us to play semantic games about the definition of this word. The citizens we represent are not fools. They can tell the difference between different varieties of chocolate and they have to be allowed to decide for themselves. I have no doubt that this compromise will help the overall market increase. The harsh fact is that none of us, Belgians, French or British, are paying the cocoa growers a fair price for their efforts and the contrast between our enjoyment of this luxury product and their poverty is shameful.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I would like to go back to the issue of the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON interception system. Mr Swoboda’s wise words were music to my ears. I glean from those that he is in favour of extending the mandate of the present Echelon committee. Can the Group of the count on his support if we submit a proposal to that effect? Relating to Thursday: President. – With regard to Thursday and the debate on oral questions to the Commission on water management in Europe, the Group of the European People’s Party has requested that this debate not be followed by a resolution. Is there a speaker to move this request on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party?

Political group: Verts-ALE
The aims of this Commission proposal could not be clearer: to remove the cross-border tax obstacles that not only hamper company cross-border mobility within the European Union, particularly that of multinationals, but also to allow a policy of company restructuring and relocation that favours tax relief or, viewed from another angle, that provides the greatest tax benefits. This is something that clearly underlies the creation of common tax rules under the European Company Statute, ensuring that its activities are not hampered by discriminatory tax rules or by restrictions or distortions arising from the tax provisions of Member States. In other words, at a time when so much is said about reducing the tax burden on labour, Member States are being allowed to provide tax relief for capital, as they see fit. The key issue concerns Member States’ tax sovereignty and the risks inherent in eroding the tax burden. Nevertheless, account must also be taken of the use of taxation as a tool for scrutinising and monitoring business activities, specifically in the field of mergers, in this case cross-border mergers, and of the company restructuring of major financial groups in the European Union. The main aim of this directive is to extend the scope of this issue, which undermines the protection of the financial interests of the Member States, and this is clearly something that we must reject.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as far as the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is concerned, I have always counted myself among those in the House who say that it is up to the people of the region and their leaders to define the terms of their peaceful coexistence, just as it is up to them to make the efforts and sacrifices needed on both sides in order to do so. As a European, I set great store by the Euro-Mediterranean balance and if, like many others, I have somewhat regretted the European Union’s lack of political clout in this process, I have likewise always refused to sit here in Parliament and play at being teacher, to coin a phrase. Today, just a few days away from a peace agreement or a major crisis which could erupt in dramatic scenes of violence, we must give peace every chance to succeed by helping those on both sides who are taking huge collective and individual risks to bring about peace. That is why I am in total agreement with the position stated by Pierre Moscovici and what I would say today is that we shall not help to bring about peace by taking sides in the debate and in the difficult negotiations under way. As I see it, therefore, in the short time left to us, our message to the Israelis and Palestinians should be simple and straightforward. It can be summarised in three points: we want a peace agreement in the Middle East, we shall support and guarantee a peace agreement once it has been signed and we shall use every possible means, including but not only financial means, to help ensure that it is implemented. To conclude, we know full well that peace is always a difficult process. Europe, torn apart over the centuries, knows that better than most. Overcoming divisions and eradicating terrorism is easier to talk about than to achieve as we know only too well from the Balkans, the division of Nicosia and the bombs in the Basque country. And yet, peace is the only way forward, as the Israeli-Palestinian negotiators are well aware. So all we can say is, good luck, agree to peace and we shall be at your side, as we are now.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, this is perhaps the first time I have addressed the European Parliament without having to express any worries or concerns about the subject of the debate. I am fully in agreement with the outcome of the conciliation procedure and I would like to commend both Mr Bouwman and the other Members who sat on the Conciliation Committee and Mrs de Palacio and her services for ensuring that we worked together to achieve this positive outcome. I think that the outcome of our work will finally help to improve the quality of our seas, tourism and the quality of life of the citizens of Europe. It is a step forward. I believe that we are now protecting the environment more effectively than hitherto, although I do admit this could have come about in a better way. But, here we are. If we see that the new system is not working as effectively as we believed it could work, we can review it. Since we had to go to conciliation, as Chairman of the Conciliation Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I would prefer to avoid such procedures as far as possible. But this requires the Council, which must abandon its tradition of secrecy, to cooperate better with the European Parliament and to speak more openly. Only in this way can the work of the Commission and our own work progress more quickly, especially in our own committee, where there are many issues that directly affect our citizens. I hope that this tradition will change under the French Presidency. In any event, we are all in favour of better cooperation and the speedier progress of the work of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would particularly like to join in thanking the Commission, the Council and all those Members involved. Thanks to their commitment, they have achieved considerable progress in the EU's telecommunications market. However, in contrast to what the word suggests, the term telecommunications market represents something that has not been dealt with properly, particularly in the Council common position we have before us. What I have in mind is digital television. I very much welcome the fact that not only the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, whose views I am conveying here, but also the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy have unanimously indicated that it is simply not enough for us just to talk about attempting to avoid the danger of a digital divide in the European Union. I am not talking about access for people with disabilities, an area in which I think significant progress has been made. I am talking about the principle of digital access for all, and also about the interoperability of equipment, application interfaces and services. I very much I regret this, whilst praising the Belgian Presidency for everything else it has achieved, but this is the drawback of this outcome: the course is now being set for equal access via a common standard for digital television, and we naturally need to strike a balance between developing the market and public interest obligations, and these two points of view have been taken into account by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market in their opinions. That is why I am urgently appealing to the Council, in view of this need to take cultural considerations into account, to ensure equal access for all. I call on you to improve this part of the text, and we will then all be able to give it our unqualified support. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today we are at last discussing the definitive ban on the administration and marketing of BST in the European Union and, hopefully, this will mark an end to the ten-year process during which the final decision has been postponed time and time again on the grounds, of course, that there was no conclusive scientific evidence which justified a definitive ban. We are now in possession of this evidence and it confirms that the use of this hormone pushes cows to their physiological limits. The consequences are leg and foot injuries, stomach/intestinal malfunctions and impaired fertility, not to mention the increase in mastitis. Cows are therefore subjected to unnecessary pain. This is unacceptable for reasons of animal welfare, but have all the risks to human health been excluded? What about BST residues in the body which have not been broken down, what about the possible change in the composition of the milk, not to mention the increase in the antibiotics administered in order to treat the sick cows. I would therefore like to support the rapporteur’s request that we step up efforts to clear up the question of the effect of BST on human health once and for all. On behalf of the group of the , I would like to thank Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert as rapporteur for her rapid work and we, of course, emphatically support her report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is essential for there to be effective protection under criminal law of the financial interests of the European Union, more so these days than there used to be. The fraud and corruption scandals of the past have had a profoundly damaging effect on the confidence of Europe’s citizens. The credibility of the efforts we make here in Parliament to employ our finances properly stands and falls with the efforts we make to deal with such scandals and prevent them from arising in the future. This does not just mean administrative changes but also structural changes; in other words we must create instruments which are actually capable of affording protection under criminal law. The Intergovernmental Conference 2000 will provide the appropriate forum for discussing this. Now it is, of course, possible to take the view that criminal law and criminal proceedings law are intrinsically matters pertaining to the law of the Member States and it is quite unthinkable that they should be governed by the principle of subsidiarity. There is no doubt that I myself am one of the advocates of this principle and one of those who oppose any further extension of competences at European level. When it comes to the demands made on the Intergovernmental Conference agenda, it is the call for there to be clear delimitation of competences that should take centre stage. Now that is not a contradiction, since the demand for an instrument of criminal law and criminal proceedings law, as detailed in Recommendations I and II of the report, is actually about taking action in the EU’s own interests, which, as far as that goes, does not damage the legal interests of the Member States; on the contrary, it protects them, at least indirectly. The compatibility with the various national systems of law, as confirmed by experts, shows that criminal law is another area where Europe has a great deal in common, for example where the significance of the offences we have been discussing here is concerned. Taking these aspects into account, I consider it appropriate that we create a framework of this kind, as proposed, and I also consider it necessary to the further development of OLAF.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it may well be that 100 years ago our cities resounded to the noise of iron wheels and iron hooves bouncing off cobbled stones. I suspect that made a hell of a din. Nonetheless the impression is that our society has become noisier with more machinery, hi-fis and stereos, planes, trains and, above all, motorways. I am all in favour of cutting noise and making life more pleasant, peaceful and calm. I support the Commission's proposals for common measurements so that we all know what we are looking at and what we are hearing across the European Union. I support the idea of noise mapping and I support legislation under single market rules to introduce limits on noise from new equipment being introduced and sold throughout the European Union. But I am opposed to the Union seeking noise limits on installations in any individual Member State. I do so, as I have argued strongly in committee, on the grounds of subsidiarity, in the belief that decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level. In almost every case in the Committee on the Environment, we deal with issues which should rightly be dealt with at European Union level, because they concern matters which affect more than one Member State – transboundary issues. But today I arrived in Parliament, I opened my window in the office in the Tower and I could not hear Strasbourg airport, I could not even hear the railway. All I could hear was someone shouting down in the courtyard. I do not regard noise from airports as a transboundary issue and I am pleased that the committee rejected a number of the amendments which were tabled. I will be urging my group to reject Amendment No 34 here because it still implies that noise limits should be introduced. Mr de Roo commented on Amendment No 36 that the eight-hour sleep limit is essential for everyone. That may be the case. It may also be the case that a cup of cocoa and a bedtime story are essential for everyone but this is not something which should be done at EU level. We should not be setting standards for these things. What is fascinating about this debate, as it was in committee and here now, is that for the best possible reasons – the improvement of health and enhancing the environment – measures have been suggested to us which represent a sort of creeping centralisation which, at the end of the day, makes the European Union seem bossy and interfering to far too many of our constituents. We should take this opportunity, and indeed every opportunity, to put into practice our belief that wherever possible we should be applying strictly the principles of subsidiarity and making sure that when we take measures on behalf of the environment at European Union level it is because they will genuinely make a difference to individuals and cannot be done by individual Member States.

Political group: ELDR
We voted against this report because Parliament supports the monetary and budgetary orthodoxy – the neo-liberal politics – of the EU’s economic policy guidelines. The report maintains emphasis on the structural reforms of the Lisbon Strategy, such as measures to make the labour market more flexible, in other words making workers more adaptable and contractual provisions more pliable, which has led to greater insecurity in industrial relations. This is not all, however. The report paves the way for the private sector to enter the fields of pensions and health, at a time when over 1.5 million workers in the European Union have swelled the ranks of the unemployed since 2001, at a time when more and more companies are closing down and others relocating, and when the long-trumpeted upturn is taking its time to appear. The right approach would be a policy of economic regeneration, committed to reinvigorating production and labour, with the aim of promoting economic growth, jobs and social and economic cohesion. The Stability Pact and the process of liberalisation and privatisation must be suspended immediately; we must combat company relocations, promote productive investment and stop encouraging precarious contractual arrangements, such as short-term contracts. We were consequently very unhappy to see that our proposals were not included in the final resolution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The work done by Portugal, as the country holding the presidency, has not been easy. There have been many difficult questions during the spring, but Portugal has shown that it is a country which takes European issues very seriously. The Feira Summit was in many ways an interim meeting prior to the French Presidency. Unfortunately, the outcome of the Summit was partly overshadowed by the tragedy in Dover, which really raises an issue which urgently needs to be taken up at EU level. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is delighted by the progress which has been achieved on, for example, the tax package and civil crisis management. We are pleased to have it confirmed that Greece is soon to be a member of the currency union. We are delighted about the formulations concerning enlargement. For liberals such as ourselves, no task is more important than that of unifying Europe. Where the reforms and the Intergovernmental Conference are concerned, we are disappointed, however. We should like to have seen more concrete results. Countries are still protecting their positions, and the debate about the EU’s future has only just begun. It is a welcome and wholly necessary debate. It must be conducted in all countries, in an open and unbiased way, and involve the citizens of all Member States. Minimum reforms in Nice will not be enough. Our citizens expect something more. They expect the EU to take proper steps forward towards an open, democratic Europe which can operate effectively with up to 40 Member States. We need to discuss the issues surrounding a constitution. The EU needs a constitution which, in a simple and understandable way, makes it clear what the EU is about and where responsibility lies. The baton has now been handed over to France. I feel a certain unease faced with the different signals emanating from the French Presidency. Even if different EU countries perhaps need, to some degree, to be progressing at different speeds, we hardly need a presidency which is moving at different speeds.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I shall now present the third part of my explanation of vote. According to the Kok report, the cost of enlargement could increase from 0.03% of the Union’s GDP in 2003 to 0.23% in 2013. That would still be very little. It should be borne in mind for example that over the last dozen years or so Germany has been devoting some 3% of its GDP to the new Länder to facilitate their structural adjustment. The Member States see themselves as net contributors. They will most certainly not agree to increasing the Union’s budget. In any case, the latter has a fixed ceiling of 1.27% of Community GDP. Consequently any future increase in structural aid to the new countries would have to be at the expense of current Union policies.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, before we vote on Article 26, colleagues have pointed out to me that the English wording of my Amendment No 47, which I hope the House will adopt, is not entirely clear in other languages. Therefore I should like to read out the English-language text, which refers to radio and television broadcasts. The text, for clarification, reads: '... in pursuit of a public service broadcasting remit'. I emphasise the last word because that is intended to include both public service broadcasting and private sector broadcasters who work under a public service remit. I believe that is not clear in every language. I ask you to ensure that the final translation in other languages – assuming that my amendment is accepted – covers that point.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, Mr President, a small country is used to dealing with a huge foreign area and this is promising with regard to the issues mentioned by the previous speaker, among others. The way in which your people, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, empathised with East Timor gives us hope that you will help lay a foundation for renewed peace and cooperation with Africa. We were really disappointed with Helsinki and the narrow IGC agenda and we hope that you will widen it as much as possible and use it to benefit reinforced cooperation. Today and in future, Europe must be able to function as a democracy. This is impossible without reform. Enlargement would then equate with a watering down of the Union. On behalf of our Group and, more specifically, on behalf of the , I would ask your presidency’s attention for the regions and cultural communities which, strictly speaking, are not Member States but which are constitutionally authorised to carry out a number of activities in respect of which they should be able to cooperate with Europe. Mr Gama, we urge that this is done directly. To our disenchantment, Helsinki, in a country which is still known for its pleas for transparency, took a step in the opposite direction in the much vaunted annex 3. I would also like to note that, this week in Parliament, we spoke with great concern about the disparities in welfare between the regions in Europe. Unemployment in our poor regions is hardly dropping. How will we realise the huge ambitions of enlargement if we cannot even summon up respect for cultures and for languages in Europe itself, and if we are not even able to bridge the yawning gap in welfare between our own regions? I am aware that you are interested in and understand all this and I wish you every success in it.

Political group: Verts-ALE