GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I would like to thank Mr Costa, who did, when all is said and done, put in a huge amount of work, having started by following the activities of the high-level working group on this subject, because it is an own-initiative report. Ultimately, we were left with a report that we would have preferred, at the very least, to send out a different signal to the Commission, in particular. In fact we expect more from the Commission than the signal sent out by what, in a sense, remains of the Costa report. Allow me to explain as follows – it will also speak of a certain amount of exasperation. Every so often, I cherish the hope that we will be sufficiently clever to gain insight into a certain period and do what we have to with it. I have already anticipated for quite some time that fair pricing would be a rational, intelligent debate and would deliver measures. When I see how long it all takes, that is when I start losing patience. If I can draw something of a comparison between the way in which the discussion on the changes in the agricultural policy is now taking place against the backdrop of the problems surrounding food safety – in Germany, among a number of other countries, my own included – then I predict than something similar will happen where the transport policy is concerned, and the environmental problems we are now experiencing, irrespective of the failed climate conferences, etc. I am also exasperated at the fact that almost everyone still hides behind all kinds of issues to do with our supposed inability to establish the cost scientifically. We can do it for accidents all right, but not for other things. I have a problem with this. Again, there is more than enough data for us to make headway with this whole affair. I therefore hope concrete measures – of the kind, incidentally, that first featured in Mr Costa’s report and a number of which we quite deliberately re-submitted – will be included in the actual White Paper. Not that we expect everyone to go along with them, but the primary intention is to send out a signal to the Commission to attempt, in the meantime, to coordinate, if not harmonise, these measures – which will include a kilometre levy and so on – at European level, so as to avoid a situation where one country does take action and another does not. One country will say that none of this is scientifically feasible, while another will simply get on with implementation, which is a most curious state of affairs of course. That is why we have put a number of subjects back on the table and we hope that some of them make it through. Apart from that, I wish everyone luck at the drafting stage.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all I should like to express my satisfaction at the conclusion of the Association Agreement between Mexico and the European Union. Many of us present here have played an active part in preparing this agreement over the last few years. With regard to the report we are dealing with, I should like to point out two aspects I consider important, the treatment of which is surprising. First, this text mentions the Mexican constitution at least eight times, arguing that if Mexico signs the agreement with the European Union this will supposedly violate that country’s supreme charter. In this regard, I should just like to recall that on 20 May 2000 the Mexican Parliament approved this cooperation by 89 votes to 11 with two abstentions. The same figures apply to the approval of the commercial decisions of the Joint Council for the Interim Agreement and also those of the Joint Council for the Global Agreement. No parliamentary group appealed to the nation’s Supreme Court of Justice, the body authorised to settle such matters, on grounds of unconstitutionality. On another subject, with regard to human rights, it should be remembered that Mexico has signed more than 50 international treaties on human and workers’ rights, including many of those mentioned in the report on the table. It also recognises the mandatory jurisdiction of the Interamerican Court of Human Rights in such matters. It seems then, that the rule of law prevails in Mexico. In addition, the current administration has signed an agreement with the United Nations and has set up a special embassy at that international organisation for human rights and democracy. I must also mention that in 1999 the democracy clause was included in this agreement. Lastly, I think the best guarantee of being able to exercise individual rights and freedoms is economic prosperity; as everyone knows and as has been demonstrated on many occasions, free trade agreements provide in the medium term a solid basis on which to achieve it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what goes on in the minds of terrorists? On the orders of Taliban chief Mohammad Omar, the two world-famous Bamiyan Buddha statues have been completely destroyed regardless of all international protests. These millennia-old treasures that are part of our common cultural heritage are irreplaceable. Not even the promise of further aid for this totally impoverished country could deter the self-styled warriors of God from their scandalous acts. They control Afghanistan, drive out dissenters, exploit the country, human rights are trampled under foot, women are denied the opportunity to go to school, as my fellow Members have pointed out, and they are not allowed to appear in public. It is like living in the Middle Ages. The Koran says that freedom of religion and conscience together with justice are central elements of Islamic social order. These commandments have been misinterpreted by the mullahs, an abuse that is unpardonable. The Taliban’s closest ally, Pakistan, intervened without success. Commissioner, the European Union must act here. We in the Group of the European People’s Party and want the international community to outlaw such fanaticism and vandalism!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, those who think the Northern Dimension is buried are wrong. There is greater need for the project at present than ever before. With eastward enlargement we will have four new Member States on the shores of the Baltic Sea and the Union’s border with Russia will be longer than what it was before. The reliability of energy management in the Baltic countries will be among the challenges of the future. Something else will need to be found to replace bituminous shale and Ignalina. One cannot merely rely on gas imported from Russia. The Baltic Ring must be involved in the programme. The programme must also show clear links to EU relations with the northern parts of Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the United States of America and Canada. The aim is for the Northern Dimension to grow to rank with the MEDA Programme among other good EU programmes. The Northern Dimension, like the MEDA Programme too, is a matter for the whole of the EU. The project has, with reason, been criticised for having nothing concrete to offer. I hope that my report that was adopted in May 1999 by the European Parliament, which focussed specifically on concrete proposals, will serve as a cornerstone of the Northern Dimension. The problem with the Northern Dimension has been that funding has been scraped together from various EU programmes. The decentralised character of its management, spread among several of the Commission’s Directorates-General as it is, only complicates the work. The project is like a patchwork quilt. May the Commission organise itself in such a way that the development of the Northern Dimension is the responsibility of a high-ranking official in just one Directorate-General, as is the case with the MEDA Programme. I also support the idea that the Northern Dimension should have its own budget heading, which is in accord with my earlier proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a joint statement by the Communist, Workers and Parties against the aggressive war on Iraq. The statement, signed so far by 60 parties from five continents, notes among other things, that: ‘aggression against Iraq, which is based on the new US doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, threatens to destabilise the whole region and bring grave consequences for human civilisation as a whole. It poses a huge threat to international peace and the system of international law, and creates a precedent for other arbitrary acts of aggression.’ The statement concludes: ‘we must stop the aggressive war on Iraq. We must warn against attempts by the big powers to blackmail the United Nations. We must oppose any form of European support for the war or participation in it. We demand that our countries do not provide the United States with military or other facilities to carry out its aggressive aims’. The question is, what will the European Parliament do to avert a war, in conformity with the wish of the overwhelming majority of the people of Europe? What will the European Parliament do to ensure that no Member State provides any assistance to the United States if they follow the path of war? I will submit a copy of the full text of the joint statement to the Secretariat.

Political group: GUE-NGL
One last time before the Nice European Council, the European Parliament has had the opportunity to express its opinion on the major themes of the Intergovernmental Conference. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs prepared a draft resolution outlining the expectations of the European Parliament. While I may agree with the broad thrust of this resolution, “to make the European Union more democratic, more effective and closer to its citizens”, I am nevertheless unable to take on board a certain number of proposals which seem to me to be rather vague. I therefore prefer to abstain. On the crucial issue of the institutions, however, the proposal of a satisfactory all-round formula is to its credit. The explicit affirmation of the principle of the double legitimacy of the European Union, that of the peoples and that of the Member States, is, in this respect, essential. It will make it possible for negotiators from the least populous Member States to defend, in Nice, the principle of adequate representation in all the institutions, including the European Parliament. It is becoming ever more apparent that opening the debate on proportionality (votes in the Council and seats in the European Parliament), one might go so far as to say on the balance of power between the Member States, has opened a Pandora’s box which will be very difficult to close in Nice. Now, there are squabbles not only between the ‘larger’ and the ‘smaller’ but among the ‘larger’ too. It would be a good idea for the European Council to decide, from the outset, to base all its institutional decisions on the principle of double legitimacy, which has proved itself from the very inception of the Community.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, at the beginning of this year, anyone who was no longer able to stand by and watch the murders, expulsions, looting and pillaging by the Serbian army and militia in Kosovo and for that reason spoke out in favour of so-called humanitarian intervention, must now wonder whether the war – that was unfortunately not waged against those who committed the crimes, but against the Yugoslavian population, – the war that we conducted for over two and a half months and that cost several billion euros, really brought about the result that we expected. Have the murders, expulsions, looting and pillaging in Kosovo stopped? Unfortunately not. Unfortunately the crimes are continuing, with two differences. First: the victims of the crimes are no longer the Kosovo Albanians, but Serbs, Roma and even Bosnians. Secondly, it is no longer the Yugoslavian army in Kosovo, but our armies, which on the one hand are completing a fantastic undertaking in reconstruction, in protecting people, bringing law and order, in every respect and on the other hand are despairing because they are not able to really protect the people that they should protect and that they would have wanted to protect. Who is to blame? Unfortunately those for whom the international community waged a war, the first war on humanitarian grounds. The former KLA – I say “former” because it supposedly no longer exists, because it was supposedly disarmed – believes that it has won a war and that it therefore has the right to commit exactly the same crimes as those who led to this war. And that is the disgrace! The international community has until now just looked on at what is happening. We would assure the UN representative, Mr Kouchner, and his former colleagues, of our full support, if he would finally begin to set up an administration in Kosovo and not leave that to the bogus and illegitimate government of the KLA, even if the local authorities and the city and local councils were not formed by the KLA, but actually – if not other Kosovans – other UN officials could complete this work and the various different tasks that need to be performed in Kosovo.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the question addressed by the Napolitano report is not simple, particularly when seen against the backdrop of the process of integrating the European Union which is currently underway. Yet, although it is not an easy issue to resolve, the rapporteur addresses it in a commendably balanced, not to say quite pragmatic way. There is, in fact, undeniable tension between the supranational and regional dimensions: tension which is historical, for the more European development has tended towards the supranational, the more – I regret to say – we have lost sight of the fact that, within many States, regionalisation processes were developing with characteristics and approaches to decentralisation which were different from what we were developing in the European Union. Thus, a sort of grey area has been created, there have been injustices, if we consider what has happened in recent years. We have witnessed a process of Europeanisation of powers conferred on the regions by Constitutions. We have witnessed a complete lack or only relative participation of the regions in the Community decision-making processes. We have witnessed the transfer of responsibilities from the States to the Community and thus the loss of the interactive powers conferred on the regions by national Constitutions. The Länder participate in the federal legislative process through the Bundesrat and the Italian regions have powers of initiative at national level. Then the regions are further penalised in that they no longer have any guarantees as regards jurisdictional protection in the event of encroachment on their competences. I feel that the Napolitano report endeavours to provide a very interesting legal response to all these concerns. It is the basis for a debate which will take place formally in the Convention, probably at the beginning of February. The report and the amendments tabled – further reflection may be necessary on some amendments where too much emphasis is placed on access to a Constitutional Court – will enable Parliament to provide the Convention with a plan for the construction of the Europe of the citizens which we want.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although the connection between women and sport has a long tradition in history, dating back to the first games in ancient Greece, it was only in 1928 that the decision was taken to allow women to participate in the Olympic Games. Women's participation in sport has steadily increased since then, even though it could and should develop more quickly today. This report focuses on women's participation in the three core areas of sport: sport in schools, sports for leisure, and competitive sport, although there are no proposals to create sporting opportunities exclusively for women in any of these areas. The principles of gender mainstreaming should apply in sport as elsewhere. Equality in sport is, in my view, the most important aspect of this report. The goal of equal opportunities for school, amateur and professional sport is above all a way of improving women’s integration at all these levels. On the other hand, the importance of women's role must be recognised in sport too. Women remain under-represented in sports administration and decision-making. Why is it mainly men who are involved in club and association structures, even though more and more women are becoming members? In top-level sport, this discrepancy is becoming increasingly apparent. Here, women are not represented in the decision-making bodies in a way that is commensurate with their achievements in professional sport. On the contrary, women are in a far more difficult position in top-level sport, especially as regards the health of women athletes. The Community must take action here, and it must do so in cooperation with the various organisations involved in competitive sport. It is also important, however, to consider the principle of subsidiarity. I share the view that it is unnecessary for the Commission to establish a ‘women and sport’ unit, as is proposed. There is also no budget line which could fund such a unit, and that is why I will reject Article 5 in tomorrow's vote. I would also ask you to reject Article 32, which proposes that when the ‘Television without Frontiers’ Directive is amended, it should stipulate that the Member States must broadcast women’s sport competitions. There is no Europe-wide mandatory list governing the broadcasting of sporting events. The individual Member States may, if they wish, draw up their own national lists of major sporting events which attract major public interest. In my view, establishing such an obligation would result in over-regulation, which is not something that we as a group want to see. That is why we will not vote in favour of Article 32 tomorrow. Finally, I would like to congratulate Mrs Fraisse very warmly on her excellent report. We too endorse most of the report, and we will vote in favour of it as a whole tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mrs President, the Charter includes a number of welcome points. The right to good administration, which Mrs Malmström also talked about, is one of the most important advances of all. That right does not exist in other international documents, and it is absent from the constitutions of many Member States. Access to a more open administration is one of the most practical improvements the Charter can offer our EU citizens. The Charter also opens the way to minority rights because Article 22 says that the European Union must respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. Such respect, combined with a ban on discrimination, creates a basis for securing the position of minorities in the future. The method of working has been a success. It has been so successful that, in his speech last Friday, the Finnish Prime Minister singled out the method as a way of coming up with ideas in anticipation of a future EU constitution. This is something I consider to be important. It is also important, however, that the EU should subscribe to the Conventions on Human Rights. The two belong together. Finally, I am delighted to note that children too are mentioned. I hope that this provides a basis for Commissioner Vitorino to take measures to ensure that the EU can make a contribution before this autumn's summit on the position of children. I am also very proud to see that a representative of my parliamentary group in my own country, Gunnar Jansson, played a very important role when this Charter was drawn up. I believe he has contributed to the clarity to which Mrs Berès referred in this Chamber. The Charter is clear and concise and could be a model for many other constitutions.

Political group: ELDR
The British Conservatives voted against the Commission proposal as amended, but in favour of the legislative resolution. We did this, not because we support the contents of Parliament's report, but because it is imperative that Parliament gives an opinion so that Council may proceed to a decision. Europe's farmers must be given a clear direction for the future. We support Commissioners Fischler's proposals to reform the CAP and believe it is long overdue. We are completely behind the plans to decouple payments away from production, and welcome the freeing up of agriculture. We also believe that the Fischler proposals will ensure the future of European agriculture in an enlarged Europe of 25 Member States. The proposals as they are in Parliament's text would only confuse and complicate an already over-bureaucratic system, and force agriculture into even further decline. The Commission reforms will put us in a strong position when we sit around the table at the WTO talks in Cancun. We hope that Commissioner Fischler sticks to his guns, and pushes ahead with his plans in Luxembourg next week. We, and European farmers, wish him every success!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall be pleased to answer the request put to me. Firstly, in relation to the issue raised concerning the disappearance of documents, I have written to President Cox, as he requested yesterday, and I have sent a copy to all my colleagues, the Group Presidents, explaining that certain documents did indeed disappear, but thanks to the efforts of the assistants and the officials of the Groups and the committee, they were replaced before the start of the meeting. (Noise) On this point, moreover, I hope that Vice-President Podestà will give explanations to the House concerning the serious accusations he has made in writing in the Corriere della Sera, which he has not mentioned at all until now, and this is a grave insult to Parliament. (Applause from the left) As regards my statements, I see that Mr Poettering has noted what I said, but not what was said to me. That is, I would ask that everything be recorded. I shall give explanations about what I have said. I told Mr Tajani that he was like a basilisk – this is not an insult, it is a word whose meaning can be looked up in the dictionary – 'calla, desgraciado [be quiet, wretch]'. 'Desgraciado' – I refer you to the dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy of Language – describes someone who has no grace, and as far as I am concerned, he clearly is such a person. (Applause from the left) As regards 'wild boar', there is a problem, which I accept is to do with Spanish parliamentary culture. (Noise) ‘Jabalí’ has been a traditional expression in Spanish parliamentary affairs since the Second Spanish Republic. Pérez Madrigal was well known for acting as Mr Pannella is acting now – shouting to right and left. In Spanish, ‘acting the wild boar’ means doing what many of his colleagues were doing. I am sure, Mr Poettering, that since yesterday you have received no complaints from the European Association of Wild Boars concerning such a comparison. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the large groups in this House must be feeling like the cat that got the cream, for there will now be millions pouring into their party coffers, and they will be able to afford fun and games throughout Europe. The result of our debates is, then, that the taxpayer will have to finance and pay for all manner of banquets held by European political parties. It is annoying, but there is no altering matters. It is therefore our most important task to ensure that the aid is transparent. It needs to be possible for any citizen to check all donations to the parties on the Internet and, in the same way, the European parties’ accounts must be accessible to anyone curious about them. Matters are not very satisfactory at present. For example, the accounts of the three big political parties are closed and opaque affairs. This is something we need, of course, to sort out, and I should therefore like to call for detailed monitoring of, and clear rules governing, what the money is used for. Allow me therefore to call upon everyone to take a look at the parties’ accounts in order to see whether they can in actual fact deduce anything from them. I can tell you now that they will not be able to. All they will be able to do is hope that party members will have had some really good junkets and beanfeasts around Europe at the taxpayers’ expense.

Political group: GUE-NGL