GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, from your speech a few minutes ago, it seems that you deserve another title: high representative for hope. Let us hope that you are right! Unfortunately I do not share your optimism, even though it is cautious, but I admit that your words have, to some extent, allayed my concerns. (DE) Ladies and gentlemen, although the peace process may have run out of steam, the underlying principles still apply and are indisputable. Firstly, the Oslo fundamental agreements still exist and continue to be in force. No one, Mr Sharon included, can cast doubt on their validity, in moral terms and under international law. I expressly refer to the ‘Land for Peace’ principle, among others, which has formed the basis for rapprochement and negotiations since Madrid. Secondly, the Security Council Resolutions Nos 242, 338, and needless to say, also No 194 on refugees, must be fulfilled, so as to create the foundation for a just and lasting peace. Thirdly, I come to the crucial problems that we must solve if peace is to be restored, as you yourself said Mr Solana: the return of all occupied territories and demolition of all settlements on these territories, Palestinians to have rights to parts of Jerusalem, the possibility of the return of Palestinian refugees, which perhaps causes the biggest headache of all. I shall close by repeating something that has been said and given due emphasis before in this House. The European Union has a huge moral duty, and it is vital for reasons of self-interest, to play a political role in this peace process, which is in keeping with its political commitment. The division of labour of the past, according to which the USA made policy and the European Union paid for it, is no longer acceptable. Nor has it yielded any worthwhile result to date. It is not a case of the EU stepping into the shoes of the USA in the peace process, rather, what we want is for the European Union to join forces with the USA in a bid to find a just solution. Now that would be what I would call a new peace process. With your presence, Mr Solana, and that of the UN Secretary-General, Sharm al-Sheikh created a new framework for peace negotiations. We would like to think that this new model will be retained and will deliver better results than its predecessor. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to begin by thanking Mrs Read for all the work she has put into the present report. It is wonderful that there should be such a lot of interest in this area. I believe it is important that, here in the European Parliament, we should now promote further knowledge of these complex and exciting developments and create a readiness to implement the necessary changes. Commissioner Liikanen, with his personal commitment, and the Commission’s “e-Europe” document represent a positive vision of the new economy and a growth-orientated policy which I wholeheartedly support. It is unfortunate that certain Members see the burgeoning information society as a threat, rather than appreciate the opportunities it involves. The significance of e-commerce is difficult to overestimate. Until now, the single market has only been a reality for major companies. e-commerce means that the single market will become accessible in a quite different way to smaller companies and, above all, to individuals, customers and consumers, who can now finally benefit from the whole of the European single market. In the wake of technological change, there will not only be changes to patterns of trade, but new opportunities will also be created where the arts, entertainment and personal contacts are concerned. In order to best support the new economy, it is important that we as politicians should not believe that we can foresee companies’ and people’s every need. We must allow the market, that is to say purchasers and vendors, to choose for themselves. In view of the way this part of society and of the economy looks, it is even more important not to engage in a fever of regulation by controlling activities in every detail. Instead, we must further deregulate markets so as to increase competition with a view to reducing prices. That is definitely the best way of making information services available to all citizens. An important part of creating growth in the new economy is to increase the flow of venture capital for newly started-up and expanding businesses. We must increase competitiveness and the development of ideas in our part of the world, that is to say in Europe. The most important thing that heads of State and government can do in Lisbon is to begin reducing taxes on capital in their various countries, for it is these which now constitute the greatest obstacle to an increased flow of venture capital. To the left-hand side of this House, I would say, following the present debate: try to affirm the opportunities available to people because of the information revolution. Avoid being so fearful and negative. Take Mrs Villiers’ insights on board. Adopt Mr Wijkman’s global and positive attitude, and learn from young Mrs Kauppi’s experiences. I do not think we should underestimate the problem of making the relevant adjustments, but do not bury this initiative in your old conceptual world. That would be Europe’s loss.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, that was not the position taken by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and it is unfortunate that Mr Trakatellis has not kept to the usual practice of presenting the Committee' on the Environment’s report, but has, regrettably, reproduced his own position. I find that very annoying and regrettable, and ask you, Mr President, to see to it in future that rapporteurs represent the position of their committee. If they are unable to do that, they should give the report back to somebody else, rather than present their personal opinion as the committee's position. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, people who have to do without a part of their body as a result of an accident or an operation are generally happy that these days there are ways of restoring their lost functions. In cases in which they cannot be restored, they at least want to make sure that the external damage caused is made as invisible as possible. This naturally also applies to women who have had an operation as a result of breast cancer. They thought it was a good solution to replace the lost part of their bodies with an artificial substitute that has the same suppleness as the original living material. These days there are disappointed women who find that they have been poisoned after such treatment. These are the people who are warning against this happening again and are pleading for a ban. The new material generally lasts only a few years; after that the silicone may leak or escape into the body. Those affected by this may have been beautiful for a short time but are ill for a long time afterwards. A positive point in the rapporteur’s proposal is to prohibit advertising for this solution and to improve advice on the negative consequences and on alternatives. It may be possible to live with silicone breasts if they are periodically replaced with new material. This approach takes better account of women who are in danger of psychological problems following an operation than does an outright ban, and prevents these treatments from being performed illegally without proper information. A possible advantage is still the fact that gullible women who are not able to check out the dangers and who retain old replacement material in their bodies because they cannot afford or are afraid of repeated operations will continue to get into difficulties in the future. I agree with Mrs McKenna that if it is not possible to severely restrict these practices, a ban may soon be unavoidable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I voted against the van Hulten report because the rapporteur has taken the opportunity presented by the assessment of the implementation of Parliament’s accounts to proffer, out of context, his own political opinions on the system of payments to Members of Parliament and on the location of Parliament’s seats. These matters, which are causing a deep rift within Parliament, must not, therefore, be viewed in isolation (which is currently the case), much less at the end of a legislature and, apparently, as the result of particular personal interest and of inappropriate pressure from the media, whose sole intention is to damage the legitimacy of the forthcoming elections. The rapporteur has failed, this time, to serve the European cause well and should not, therefore, receive the European Parliament’s approval. - Ghilardotti report (A5-0253/2004)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the words spoken by my colleagues show how fragile a peace process is and, at the same time, how important. The hostilities and war in the Congo, but also in the region of the Great Lakes and in Angola, are all interlinked conflicts and are not just the cause of dreadful human suffering but will also hinder any efforts to build and develop in the future. That is why we must not just watch this peace process from the sidelines and make symbolic gestures. We can see that there are different phases to this process. An end must be brought to the hostilities. We already know how limited the achievements have been here up until now; there is the necessary preparation and implementation to be undertaken by a united military committee that must precede the establishment of a peacekeeping force. In its turn, this force must undertake the disarmament of all armed militias and prepare for national reconciliation. Every one of these steps represents an enormous challenge. I believe that the European Community and the various Member States have a responsibility of historic importance in this respect. That is why, Mr President, Commissioner, I want to make particular reference to the last few paragraphs of our resolution which state emphatically that we must assist with the implementation of the peace agreement. But I want to point out that this assistance must not be symbolic. Rather, it must be efficient and it must be tangible. Parliament would like to be kept informed of developments here. I also want to draw your attention to the shameless export of, and illegal trade in, weapons that various of our Member States are still guilty of.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, I appreciate your answer and your effort generally regarding the environment in Europe, but what you say is simply not coherent with everyday facts. When this was implemented in Finland it was mainly based on old protection schemes, which do not meet directive criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Therefore, you must understand the position of the private landowners. Their right to use their own land was wrongly prohibited and in fact, contrary to what you say, the appeals in the Finnish courts were handled en bloc. 99 times out of 100 they were rejected outright. People therefore feel frustrated and powerless. We believe in Europe, but how do we convince ordinary European citizens or the Finnish farmer if they feel they have been steamrollered by Europe and, in this case, by the Finnish authorities? They have simply been the victims of injustice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first and foremost I would like, during my short intervention, to concur with Mrs Peijs, whose concern about an efficient SME policy I have shared fully for many years. Furthermore, I would like to focus on what passes for a decision on the taxation package. I see from the conclusions that the European Council has approved an ECOFIN report, the statement in the Council minutes and the agreement and principles of the fiscal package itself. That is quite a mouthful but there is still a lack of substance as far as I can see, and I am convinced we are being short-changed. I have the feeling that every pertinent question goes unanswered and that, unfortunately, this does nothing for Europe’s credibility. After all, the people will not even know after this European Council whether there is actually to be a European system governing income from savings, or whether it will be put on the back burner so as to be rid of this annoying dossier. It may well be that a timeframe has been agreed, but each stage is absolutely beset with conditions. Nor do people know if banking secrecy is to be abolished, or whether any progress will be made in the implementation of the other elements of the fiscal package. Mr President, knowing as I do that the Council presidency has gone to enormous lengths to make something of the aforementioned fiscal package, I would appreciate it if the President-in-Office of the Council could respond to two questions that I have. Firstly, is the taxation of savings merely to be postponed or is there a chance of it actually being abandoned? Secondly, would you not agree that as long as the unanimity ruling applies to fiscal decision making, it will be impossible to make the internal market a reality where the tax system is concerned?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there are already some doubts about the viability of the nuclear industry in a liberalised energy market, as witnessed by the problems of British Energy in the United Kingdom. I would like to seek assurances from you today, Commissioner, that in no shape or form can this package be used as a bail-out for the nuclear industry in a way which would prejudice other energy sources and give unfair preference to the nuclear industry in the European energy single market. The coverage of the very considerable costs of waste disposal, for instance, should not simply be lifted from the accounting books of companies producing nuclear energy. In your statement you said you would now make sure that under no circumstances could decommissioning funds be redirected as cross-subsidies for the commercial operations of nuclear companies. Could you confirm that there will be no exceptions whatsoever to that and that under no circumstances can decommissioning funds be used for commercial purposes? (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Following the conclusions of the Lisbon Summit, we have always stressed the need for a balance between quality and quantity. We have therefore made some real progress, and we must combat the scourge of unemployment. However, we need to be on our guard in relation to social plans, company restructuring, relocations and mass redundancies. We cannot be content with the precarious situation being experienced by an increasing number of our fellow citizens. Parliament has a real duty to guard against these things. Mr Mann has given the opposite message, which is unacceptable, by presenting us with an entirely neo-liberal profession of faith. We now need a real battle against poverty and in favour of employment. We do not accept casual, unqualified jobs, and we do not accept employees being placed in a precarious situation. On the contrary, we need to place the emphasis on training and qualifications, and support the most vulnerable. We need to be very vigilant on the employment of women, and we need to enable young people to enter the employment market with hope. We do not want the markets in the service trade (GATS) to be deregulated and opened up unchecked. We will not sacrifice all our social heritage which has been acquired at such a high price. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure).

Political group: PSE
Will the Commissioner advise me whether these policemen will be, or can be, armed and what their terms of engagement might be?

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Mr President, I should like to fully endorse Mrs Schroedter's view. It appears that the brutality of the regime in Minsk knows no bounds, and the way in which they are now managing to close down the OSCE office in that city by no longer issuing visas to diplomats who work there, is in itself a disgrace which once again illustrates how poor the quality of democracy in that country is. It is also a rather personal matter to us because many in this House know the people who are now being ousted out of the country, if they have not been ousted already. Over the course of two elections, we have joined forces with the OSCE team in Minsk in a very pleasant and effective partnership. On two occasions, we, along with the OSCE, have had to conclude that the outcome of the elections was not legitimate, and this is the problem we are essentially faced with. Also, we have always said that the European Union and the OSCE should be pro-active in supporting civil society and the opposition. This is what Mr Lukashenko considers unacceptable and what he tries to avoid at all cost. This is also why we are calling on the European Union too to find out when the office will actually be closing down and whether we should also consider ceasing the TACIS activities because these have probably become ineffective, since they share the same objective as the work of the OSCE.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, it is my personal belief, and one I share with my party and my group, that there can be no going back on enlargement towards the East. There is a historical basis for that view, but we should not forget that a commitment on our part is called for too. We have just heard a reference to Kaliningrad. At present it is part of Russia, but it was the birthplace of no less a figure than Kant, one of the thinkers who laid the foundations for modern Europe. We should also remember that the Ukraine is as European as Poland. There is a region known as Galicia in Spain, but there is another Galicia in Central Europe with Krakow as its capital. That region boasts a long history and is at present partitioned between Poland and the Ukraine. It should also be borne in mind that if Turkey joins, Europe will spill over into Asia. All the problems and political uncertainties related to this process must be taken into account. We are contemplating a Union with a population of 500 million and 28 Member States at the last count, if the Balkan countries do not join. Such a Union will need European institutions that are both more tolerant of diversity and stronger. The issue of the type of constitution we should seek also arises. Regarding economic uncertainties, it has been claimed that after 2006 the European budget could be maintained with 1.27% of European GDP. That is impossible in my view, if we wish to maintain the Structural Funds and European policies, notably the employment policy. We only have to recall the German experience. Differences between East and West still exist, despite the tremendous effort made. It is also important to respond to concerns regarding the environment, transport, and even the impact on this House. It is not clear whether the Treaty of Nice will have been superseded by the time the new Members join, but it provides for 732 Members of the European Parliament. What kind of enlargement will it be? Will ten countries be joining or not? I think these questions deserve careful consideration. Finally, I believe the issue of eastwards enlargement should lead us to reflect on the kind of Europe we are aiming for. A more diverse Europe should in the future be a world power working for peace and solidarity. By its very nature, it cannot be a militaristic power like the United States. All these thoughts should be aired in the House. We must avoid focusing on minor difficulties arising, because we have many major problems to deal with. IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOUVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is very good to see you again, and I hope to visit you again in person in future. I am very pleased that you are now President of Parliament, but I should just like to talk about this directive. My group, or at least D66, voted for this directive to provide for the possibility of fair competition in ports and to prevent social dumping. That means that all parties, including self-handlers, must have the required high social standards and professional qualifications. In addition, the Member States and the port authorities, in particular, must lay down conditions in the field of safety and environmental protection. What is important is that the Council and Parliament draw up and present the directive in such a way as to rule out the possibility of social dumping, and also the possibility of rigid protection of one of the parties, and I hope, therefore, that the negotiations are productive.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, since submitting that request to you I now speak not just on behalf of the 36 Members but on behalf of my group. I wish to draw the House's attention to reports which have appeared in the Belgian, German and UK newspapers this weekend which relate to quite serious allegations that the European Parliament and also Members of the Commission may have been misled in relation to elements of the evidence in the Andreasen affair. This arises in the context of a report apparently commissioned by Commissioner Kinnock prior to suspending the Commission accountant. Both the press and Commission sources have extensively quoted from this report. It is essential that the report is published in full forthwith so that the House has the full facts concerning this matter. It is important not just in the context of the whole Andreasen affair but also in the context of the budget discharge procedure which is to be undertaken during the next few weeks. The Commission cannot choose to engage in selective briefing of extracts from Commission papers and then claim general confidentiality in relation to those same documents in the context of the framework agreement. For that reason, I propose to the House that tomorrow at 5 p.m., when the Commission attends, the Commission should explain its position in relation to this document, which is allegedly a report from the head of internal audit making these serious allegations. That document should be published and this House should be in a position to form a view in relation to it. I therefore ask for the House's agreement to my proposal that the Commission is requested to come to this House at 5 p.m. tomorrow in order to deal with these serious allegations. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE