GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in this Parliament, which is a pluralist parliament, we have today achieved an unusual degree of unanimity amongst the Members who have spoken. I believe that all the speakers are very concerned about the results of the Nice European Council. This is not a question – despite what my friend, Elmar Brok, has said – of two exams that we have to pass; Amsterdam and Nice. No, this is a much longer-standing issue. I remember the enlargement of 1995, when the question of institutional issues was already being raised, and I remember a letter from Chancellor Kohl in which he told us to approve enlargement and then the rest would be resolved immediately. We did so, the enlargement of 1995 went ahead, the discussion group presided over so well by Carlos Westendorp was created, Amsterdam arrived and now we are going to have Nice and practically nothing has changed, Mr President, we go round and round in circles on institutional issues and never find solutions which will allow us to cope with this hugely ambitious task of enlargement to 27 members. This is what worries us and it worries all this afternoon’s speakers. This is the message that we wish to send to the European Council through you, Mr President. You should be aware that we are not going to judge this French Presidency on its considerations of the economic services of general interest, which is a very important issue. No, we are going to judge it on the mandate of the Nice Conference, which is the same as it was in Finland plus enhanced cooperation. There are two aspects of this issue that are absolutely fundamental to this Parliament: How will qualified majority voting be extended? And with this extension, when the decisions are legislative, will there always be codecision with Parliament? That is the first consideration. The second one, Mr President, is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Institutional issues are not of interest to many people, because they are complicated issues. The Charter of Fundamental Rights – I have had the opportunity to talk about this in many places – is of interest to people, because they understand and feel strongly about fundamental rights. I believe that in the Convention we produced good work. I believe that we have a good Charter and that this Council is going to waste a great political opportunity because, in the proposal you are making, Mr President, the proclamation – the one which my friend and group Chairman, Mr Poettering, calls a freierliche Proklamation – is a proclamation by stealth. You tell us to proclaim it and leave it at that. You do so as if you were taking care not to disturb anyone. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that is the great political task of this European Council. If you fail to take advantage of it, I fear that you will return here after the European Council in Nice, other presidencies will come around and this Parliament will be tempted to follow Oscar Wilde’s advice, which was that the best way to avoid temptation was to fall into it, and therefore not approve the Treaty of Nice when the time comes. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Union is faced with major tasks and its further development depends to a great extent on what we do here and now. Enlargement to include the countries of Eastern and Central Europe is the biggest challenge in the Community’s history, and if we do not tackle the issue correctly now, we are putting a lot at risk. It is extremely important that we explain to the Union’s citizens, and the citizens of the candidate countries, what the Union stands for. An information and communication strategy must, therefore, be high on our agenda. I am looking forward with great interest to hearing your answer, Commissioner Reding, because I know that information is also of great interest to you: an interest which we share, moreover, because we are both journalists by profession. I believe that we also have the same interest in the Union’s communication and information activities being organised in as close proximity to the citizens as possible and in our applying the policy so that the various groups in society get the information which they most need. The keywords are coordination – partly when it comes to sharing information between the Commission and the Parliament – decentralisation, targeting and optimum exploitation of the available information technology. I am curious as to how the Commission will go about the task. I imagine that the Commission’s offices in the major European cities will be involved and that they will be assigned tasks and responsibilities and given resources to contact and inform the public at large. The experts, the authorities and those who are genuinely interested in the EU should not have problems getting information, and I must admit that I am a little sceptical when I hear about an 'interinstitutional' library in Brussels or similar central functions. I would much rather that the Commission’s office in Copenhagen was a little more accessible. It is the Commission’s local offices, in cooperation with Parliament’s local offices, which must meet the man on the street, the man who always thinks that Brussels is so extremely far away. He must understand that Brussels means all of us together, as Commission President Prodi put it. It is a very difficult task because, in my opinion, the gap between the citizens and the institutions is wide, and with the major challenges which the Union is facing the task will become no less great. Enlargement, the Commission’s ambitious 5-year plan, the Commission’s plans for reform, the Intergovernmental Conference: there is a lot to provide information about, and I think that this is an urgent matter. I believe that you share many of my views, Mrs Reding.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I think there is a mistranslation in the Swedish text. It would have been a turn-up for the books if the European had expressed its concern about a possible increase in taxes on income from capital. In fact, we voted as we wished to do, but there was a mistranslation in the Swedish text, and I wish this to be noted.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteurs – and indeed the people of Wales, because I did not realize they were so concerned about the Commission's welfare that they had elected someone to represent the Commission's views in Parliament rather than their own! I would also like to say, just to correct something that Mrs Morgan said earlier, that I am very lucky in this debate, because my party declared in our manifesto – which helped so many of us on this side get elected – that we would not give discharge to any EU accounts until the Commission reform process had been successfully implemented. I cannot therefore follow the lead of our excellent rapporteur, who recommends granting discharge to the Commission, for the reasons I have already given and because many people outside this place have been wondering what actually improved between 1996 and 1998. Most people believe that things got worse within the Commission in that time rather than better. I only joined the Committee on Budgetary Control a couple of months ago, and to me the meetings and the reports of the last two months have raised probably more questions than they have answered. To close, I would like to ask two of those questions. Firstly, can the Commission confirm whether Mr Fléchard is related in any way to Mr Delors and/or members of his cabinet? Secondly, can he confirm whether any of his or Commissioner Kinnock's cabinet have actively lobbied MEPs for support of the Socialist Group, and in particular for Mrs Morgan's amendments on the Stauner report? If they have, would this not be an abuse of their position? (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not know whether you are aware that I have received a note from the Presidency concerning a question I asked the Council and which was due to be answered today, saying that it is unacceptable, because it apparently made accusations of bad faith or a procès d'intention with regard to words spoken by the President of the Spanish Government, Mr Aznar. As everyone knows, at a press conference with Mr Blair, Mr Aznar threatened Chile and Mexico by saying that, if they did not vote in favour of the coalition position in the Security Council, the progress of their agreements with the European Union could be blocked by some States. I do not think that this constitutes a threat; it is simply Mr Aznar’s true intention. This is why my question has not been allowed. Despite this, I have reworded it. Mr President, do you know whether I will be able to table the question today? In any event, Mr President, I wish to ask whether today’s questions have been looked at, to know whether any other accusations of bad faith have been made. Because there have been and they are all legitimate. I fail to understand on what grounds the President has decided to reject my question, because when I spoke about Mr Aznar, I did so objectively and clearly: this was Mr Aznar’s clear intention in threatening Chile and Mexico, countries which, furthermore, are Spanish-speaking, which makes the situation all the more unacceptable. I wish to ask, Mr President, whether you will allow me to ask this question and whether, in any event, the other questions have been looked at to see whether they are guilty of the same sin.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Commission proposal on guidelines for employment policies in 2000 does not really add anything new as compared with previous documents. Nevertheless, it does contain some really crucial points, in particular on information systems and the policies facilitating the transfer of these systems to labour. It is also right to emphasise, as do Amendments 2 and 3 to Guidelines 1 and 2, that long-term unemployment cannot be fought effectively with State subsidies. I would also like to emphasise three limits which we still have to resolve concerning employment policies that the Commission proposal does not adequately address. First of all, there is still not enough attention being given to small and medium-sized industry, which has other problems apart from an excessive tax burden, which is typical of large industry too. Moreover, the document does not even mention the role of an active credit policy intended to support firms – the European credit system is still light-years away from the American system in this regard – and I think that the endeavours of the European Union and the Member States to redirect it have, until now, been very weak. Finally, the main shortcoming of these documents concerns the definition of the role of the regions and local authorities in an active labour policy. If we continue to think in terms of macroeconomic planning and we do not start instead with conciliation at local level and between administrators, trade unions and entrepreneurs in establishing concrete development plans based on actual resources, then we will never address the root of the employment problem. To this end, Amendment No 15 to Guideline 12 is important, but still not sufficient.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Mr Swoboda has clearly formulated the stance of the Group of the , and has presented a clear proposal to the Commission. In my capacity of shadow rapporteur for the Group for the White Paper on Reform of European Governance in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I would now like to explain our position from my point of view. We welcome your proposal for efficient governance by setting up autonomous agencies, the proposals facilitating co-regulations and self-regulations, the will to consult representatives from specific sectors and the proposal on citizens’ and the civil society’s right to information, participation and consultation. We object, however, to a deal between the interested sectors and the European Commission without any parliamentary control. That is not our idea of democracy. We want to decide beforehand, in tandem with the Commission and the Council, when detailed legislation is necessary, when framework legislation suffices and when we can sanction a form of co-regulation or self-regulation. It goes without saying that in many cases, it will be useful to delegate technical details to the comitology procedure, provided they are technical details, and the political component has been extracted completely. Furthermore, the call-back mechanism, to which the European Parliament can refer, should this prove necessary, must be regulated in advance. It is possible that the deployment of the social actors in the case of self- and co-regulation is a much more efficient way of working. Not only should we consult the sectors about the decision-making process. In certain cases, even social non-profit organisations could also play a role in the implementation. But if the sectors are allocated certain tasks, the monitoring role by the European Parliament must always remain clear, and the European Commission must carry its responsibility. Clarity always remains condition No 1. The dialogue with social actors must be concrete and yield results, and must not become a talk shop which thrives on repetition. For what the citizen and the Group want is result: democratic control and recognisable political priority by the European government. At present, decision-making in the EU is too diffuse and too sluggish, which leads to alienation. The Group, also in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, is now offering to break this cycle. That is possible and should be done before the Laeken Summit. The Commission should then reach an agreement with the European Parliament which can be implemented by the end of the Spanish Presidency. The ball is now back in the court of the Commission. We count on you, Mr Prodi.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to refer to some very unpleasant, untruthful and personal remarks made by Mr Balfe following the budget vote in Strasbourg last month. Mr Balfe had demanded an extension of the medical insurance to former Members, which was refused by the Committee on Budgets. As one of the budget rapporteurs for 2004 I see myself as a servant of this Parliament whose main responsibility is to defend the decisions taken by this House and, in this case, also those of the Budgets Committee. My primary objective has been to ensure that there is value for money for the European taxpayer and a desire to maintain the reputation and the dignity of this House in the eyes of the European public. First, the accusation by Mr Balfe against me that I have entirely frustrated the decision taken by the Bureau is an accusation against the entire Budgets Committee, because all of his demands were put to the vote. Second, Mr Balfe made a reference to, and I quote 'the comparatively inexpensive scheme'. This is an astonishing statement given than the initial estimates are far over EUR 1 000 000 and it is costing us EUR 60 000 just for a study to establish the actual figures: hardly peanuts. Third, with respect to the use by existing Members of current schemes, I have to say that I am completely baffled. Is Mr Balfe suggesting transparency for all Members in the Budgets Committee, or does he want to establish a register for everybody? Is he proposing to amend the current scheme? Surely he is not concerned about the cost! I suggest he puts forward proposals for next year's budget so that we can make whatever amendments are needed. Finally, in the name of all of my colleagues on the Budgets Committee who I believe take their responsibilities extremely seriously, I would like to say that these allegations are not worthy of someone holding a senior position in this House – such as a Quaestor – and I believe he brings this House and that office into disrepute. (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to inform both you and the House of the tremendous damage caused by the horrendous weather which hit Greece in December and which has still not subsided in certain areas, where temperatures have plummeted to below -24 degrees Celsius. Several million trees have been destroyed, the olive and citrus crops have been ruined; in some cases they have been completely wiped out. The chairman of our group, Mr Wurtz, has written to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. First, may I congratulate you on your appointment; then may I ask you to start your term of office by intervening to obtain compensation for Greek farmers who, as you know, are the worst paid in the European Union; compensation for the damage caused and your help in restoring it. The situation is desperate and we must all intervene at once and do something about it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We have strayed from the point with the Basques and Spain. This is an explosive issue because Greek cotton growers are in absolute despair about this regulation, coming as it does right in the middle of the growing season. I have listened to the minister's reply, I have heard that not one government has called for transitional measures and I merely wish to ask the minister if the Council is prepared to approve national subsidies to save thousands of small and medium-sized cotton farms in Greece, if it intends to allow Greece to pay national aid to make up what is, for them, a totally inadequate, ruinous income.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this report expresses an opinion on the entry and residence of third country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities. At the airport, I met some beautiful retired ladies and some retired men who were still youthful, who said to me: ‘Why is it that you at the European Parliament only concern yourselves with the movement and residence of workers and citizens in general? Are you not going to do something for pensioners as well? We too would like to travel throughout Europe, even if we are from third countries and are not workers, just pensioners. Will there be a directive in the future which will facilitate the entry into the European Union and movement and residence therein of pensioners too?’ ‘I am sure there will’, I replied. Therefore, in the meantime, I voted for this report too.

Political group: PPE-DE
We must give credit to the explanatory statement of this report for stating, quite openly, that, “Competition policy is clearly one of the most important policies of the European Union.” This is really a polite euphemism for the true state of affairs. The sole purpose of the European institutions is to try to set some rules for competition. Even if it is regulated, the law of the jungle still applies, which means that, whatever industrial or financial groups hold sway, working class consumers and workers are always the victims. It is significant that the only aspect of State aid to businesses that perturbs the rapporteur is “distortion to competition” and not the fact that this aid always means that the majority of the population is being robbed to help major companies generate private profit for their shareholders. With regard to company mergers, which the rapporteur hopes that the Commission will assess, such an assessment should describe not only the competitive advantages and the additional benefits that companies gain from them. It would also be useful if the assessment showed how many redundancies they cause, because all the mergers that have been authorised by the Brussels Commission have led to restructuring or, in other words, redundancies. These mergers may have brought profits to the shareholders in the companies involved, but they have also cost their workers, their families and society as a whole very dear.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Garot has produced a good report, and it is to his credit that he has brought the price of produce back to the centre of the debate. Decoupling has facilitated the removal of the twofold price distortions brought about by payments, which tended to keep prices down and thus gave customers the opportunity to get their hands on cheap raw materials, in that the linking of grants to production – which was itself unequally distributed – meant that between 75% and 80% of this State aid was claimed by between 20% and 25% of farms. Now, even though decoupling is in place – and it was the right step to take – it does not automatically follow that different power relations have come into being; rather, what matters is that prices should be actively negotiated. This is not just about the distributing chains, but also about the cooperatives, some of them managed by farmers, which pursue their price and market policies in decision-making bodies, and it is about better payments for raw materials – agricultural raw materials. You have also made it clear that we now have to talk about modulation and about different ways of distributing these funds. Modulation must link the practice of some large and rationalised farming enterprises receiving from the state a premium amounting to EUR 100 000 per worker, to the number of employees and also to the type of production. From this, quality criteria must be developed, in order that state funds do not contribute to the accumulation of assets and give the wrong stimuli to production, but instead, enable the continuation of rural production methods in Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I recently visited the JRC at Ispra and it served to remind me firstly of the great amount of good work across the wide range of research activity that is carried out there and, secondly, of the historical legacy from the site's origins as a nuclear research facility. In particular, I saw the need to open up stores of waste which were deemed fit some decades ago and met the requirements of the time, but now do not meet our current high standards. We must bear in mind that times change and the standards change with them. I note that the procedure proposed by the Commission for the financing of the decommissioning and waste management work on the research reactors has a familiar ring to it. It sounds rather like the Tomlinson procedure which was adopted for financing Parliament's building in Brussels. That was by transferring unexpended funds in odds and ends of budget lines on a year-by-year basis. So, perhaps colleagues should be cautious before we criticise this proposal. I recognise the widespread view that funds should not be taken from research lines under the Fifth Framework and that research money should not be used for this purpose. I see a certain irony in such thoughts coming from those people who also demand the internalisation of external costs, i.e. the inclusion of decommissioning costs in the overall cost structure, when the procedure now put before us is pretty much the same thing. I support the proposal for a trialogue. It seems the sensible approach. The work must be done and has to be paid for somehow. I am very sorry to hear colleagues propagating ancient myths like 'no solution has been found for dealing with nuclear waste'. I am afraid Mrs Ahern has lost contact with the facts in this matter because she is quite wrong in her statement, and we should not let such myths distract us from the issue at hand.

Political group: PPE-DE