GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the High Representative has just talked about the dreadful and ongoing death toll in this territory between Israel and the Palestinians. We in the European Community must consider what contribution we can make to ensuring that, in the long term, peace is restored to this tormented territory. The question is this: What contribution can the European Community make? Indeed, is the European Community powerful enough to make an effective contribution here? The European Community is certainly powerful in the economic field, and its economic contribution to stabilising this territory in the past undoubtedly outstrips the contribution made by others in the same way. Yet on the other hand, when it comes to taking final decisions and to providing final guarantees to one side or the other that its people can live in peace and security in this territory in the long term, the European Community in its present state is obviously still too weak to make this vital contribution. That is why I too have a question for the High Representative, who is working with great commitment in this region: What role does this territory play in the European Union’s security strategy, which is currently being drafted? I am aware, Mr Solana, that your staff are working very intensively on this security strategy. This security strategy also involves the circle of friends with which the European Community is surrounding itself, and so my question is this: how much priority will be given to this particular conflict within that framework, and in developing this circle of friends, will the dreadful conflict which we are discussing here today be given adequate priority?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Miguélez Ramos for the thorough airing she gave to this subject and for the usefulness of her report. I also want to thank the Commissioner for having tidied the whole matter up and made what was certainly an unacceptable situation a bit more acceptable in these renegotiations. I should like to refer to what my friend Mr Casaca said about the appropriation by the European Union of the fish of Greenland. That also applies to the Azores, I am sure, and to Ireland, though the Azores' waters are not so rich. The truth is something different. At the time they joined the European Union there was only a six-mile limit in existence. It was subsequently that the European Union extended it to 200 miles. Then the fishermen of Greenland, Ireland and perhaps the Azores as well, began to see what might have been. I agree – and have frequently repeated – that in order to have a common agricultural policy it was not necessary to take fish into common ownership. We could have had a decent common fisheries policy without taking fish into common ownership. We got the worst of all worlds, in that the Union owned the fish, but the national governments had the job of policing them. That is where a very bad job was done. That is why the stocks are run down. What was everybody's business was nobody's business. It was not the common fisheries policy in itself that destroyed the stocks, it was the lack of the necessary supervision. If the Union had had the job of policing the catching of fish, we might have had some success. Greenland withdrew from the Union. It was not exactly as Mr Casaca said, but it withdrew after the 200-mile limit was extended. It should have stood its ground and maintained solidarity. It would have benefited from the structural funds, amongst other things. At the very best, structural funds have only given EUR 300 per capita to any state in this Union – that was in Ireland. The Portuguese, Greeks and southern Italians got a lot less than that. However, according to Mr Busk's calculation, the people of Greenland are receiving EUR 900 per capita per annum. That is too generous. I believe we have mixed up our foreign policy with our fisheries policy. We have given Greenland a deal that it had no right to expect, seeing that it voluntarily walked away and did not accept in good faith that it would have been fairly treated within the Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I agree with the rapporteur that it is not the legislator’s task to impose on the market a particular technology to the exclusion of all others, but, at the end of the day, our interest is in being able, one day, to use the best of the toll charging systems on offer in Europe. Microwave technology is in competition with satellite positioning and mobile communications, and important amendments now indicate its advantages in comparison with other systems. To be sure, there are parallel systems over stretches of road, and perhaps not only for a transitional period, but the simple fact is that progressive conversion to satellite positioning and mobile communications technology offers a more realistic prospect of achieving interoperability and hence guaranteeing the absence of problems with road traffic by means of a working system of toll collection and without excessively expensive investments in infrastructure. We have already heard how, in the sphere of satellite positioning the European satellite navigation system Galileo, which is currently under construction, will, from 2008 onwards, provide information of superior quality to that provided by the present-day GPS and will be ideally suited to telematics services in road traffic. This is about using the opportunities opened up to us by Galileo in the area of toll charging. Not in any way, though, is this about using toll-collecting technology as a means of justifying the extension of Galileo. Let us not make the mistake of taking the disaster that befell the introduction of German lorry tolls as a reason not to give toll charging by satellite a chance. That would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It does not follow that there has to be repetition of the financial failures, bad luck and accidents that attended the introduction of the German HGV tolls, so let us keep our cool. As I have said, I do not favour the mandatory introduction of satellite-based toll charging systems, but I do have confidence that, at the end of the day, the best system will prevail on the market, for that is what is demanded by the interests of the matter in hand.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the only reason we voted for this report is to reaffirm that we are opposed on principle to any form of racism, xenophobia and oppression of minorities, within or outside the European Union. However, that vote does not mean we agree with all the recitals and all the proposals in it. At the same time, we do not think the states that already belong to the European Union are in a position to teach lessons to countries that are only at the stage of applying for accession, given the extent to which the ignominy of racism and xenophobia is being propagated in most of the Member States of the European Union itself, by demagogues from the extreme right, even and including some within this Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Asia is one of the regions of the world where the European Union's potential in terms of political influence has not been fulfilled. This is not intended as a reproach, it is simply a statement of fact. This becomes apparent if you go to that part of the world as an EU representative, when you will find, for example, that no one is satisfied with a statement that you are representing the European Union – you will always be asked which Member State you come from. It is a way of judging how important you are. And where the European Union has not achieved its full potential it is also possible that it has not assumed its full responsibility either. That is why the ASEM process is so enormously important. I think I can say that the Commission largely has Parliament's support in promoting this process. The Commission can, to a very large extent, count on Parliament's support for its overall approach and for the agenda it has drawn up. So one of the most important things today is to make the European public aware of the ASEM process. However, our partners in Asia do not understand that, in practice, we are very inward-looking. The issues that most concern us are the Intergovernmental Conference, enlargement and, when the occasion arises, problems on our political doorstep, such as the Middle East. But they do not understand the fact that we are not fulfilling our potential when it comes to all those issues that are important for global welfare and peace. People's expectations of the European Union are enormous. They envisage a strategic European presence in Asia, yet we are certainly not in a position to provide that in the foreseeable future. It is obvious what lies behind this: an awareness of the constant presence of the United States of America and of the growing importance of China. They would like to see Europe providing a counterbalance. We must seize this opportunity and in fact this is a chance for us to win support for our principles there. This is something else that can be achieved through the ASEM process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if we are to reinforce the protection of human rights in the European Union, we must firstly concern ourselves with the most vulnerable, i.e. essentially, the poorest. The most basic violation of human rights is the denial of each individual’s right to live decently. Respect for human dignity must be our guide. We must ensure that poverty is not allowed to destroy individuals and families, that children are not taken away from their parents because of poverty and that the simple right of association is not refused to those who do not even have the right to work. The aim is to create acceptable living conditions for all. Everyone must be protected from poverty and exclusion. Everyone is entitled to education, culture and health. Everyone is entitled to decent housing and an income which allows them to live honourably. We must declare that poverty will not be tolerated. We must declare that everyone is entitled to their physical and mental integrity and that this integrity involves the right to a decent life. Could the idea of fraternity become the key concept for the 21st century? Everyone has in them the enduring need to dream and through fraternity we could meet our main expectations for the poorest in society. Fraternity gives meaning to solidarity, rejects exclusion and solitude, and ensures respect for differences. Fraternity must guarantee the rights of the poorest. Our century will be a century of progress in which the wildest utopian ideals may be realised. Fraternity is one of these ideals and together, ladies and gentlemen, we can achieve it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the objective of this Directive, which is to ensure that animals are transported in dignified conditions, deserves all our support, but we want all decisions we adopt in this regard to be based on scientific and technical criteria. Furthermore, we must not forget that the transport of animals is subject to the rules and standards of the internal market and that we cannot legislate without taking account of economic reality, because surrounding the transport of animals there is economic activity for many areas of the European Union. We cannot agree with the rapporteur’s proposal with regard to the difference between animals intended for slaughter and animals intended to live. Dignified transportation affects both equally. With regard to the duration of transportation, from the outset the Commission has maintained its desire to bring the permitted duration of transportation into line with social legislation, but the truth is, Commissioner, that the best thing for the animal’s welfare is to reach its destination as quickly as possible. A rest of 12 hours for animals in the vehicle blatantly violates the welfare and dignity of the animals being transported, but the restriction of nine hours’ transportation also blatantly violates the principle of the internal market. We therefore believe that the coherent and correct solution or proposal will be to establish the obligation for two drivers, with a cycle of nine hours which would allow for a brief rest in order to be able to continue another cycle of nine hours in the transportation. Finally, I would like to say that we believe that all our efforts on this proposal to guarantee the dignity of animals in transport must focus on good conditions for the vehicles which transport them, good preparation of the people responsible for the transportation and, above all, ensuring that the rules we decide on here are complied with throughout the territory of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am delighted to be making my maiden speech today in this House, as I am a new Member of Parliament, and I am happy to do so with regard to fisheries and the excellent report by Mrs Fraga Estévez, because I am the mayor of Mèze, in the French department of Hérault, in the south of France, which is a small town, one of the main Mediterranean coastal fishing ports, near Sète, which is the principal fishing port. I should tell you that since yesterday and again today, all the fishing ports along the Mediterranean coast have been on strike because the fishermen are protesting against the price of diesel oil and the colla in the prices of bluefish, tuna, sardines and also eels that are not sold any more. A real market problem exists and it is the whole of this profession that is being ruined. And they are protesting against the European directives that they find too restrictive. In the context of discussions like these, we need to show our support for the fishing trade. I will raise three points with regard to Mrs Fraga Estévez’s excellent report: firstly, traceability. The Group of the is in favour of detailed labelling on the products, from first sale to the last, so that people know where the product has been caught, how and also whether it is a product of fishing or aquaculture. We wish to go even further than the proposals made by the Commission. Secondly, on the questions relating to withdrawal and destruction, a reference price, a guide price, is fixed and subsidies are granted when the fishery products are not sold. Subsidies are also granted to conserve and store products. Our group is in favour of this when it is a matter of conserving products and not wasting them, but if it is a matter of increasing the amount of fishing undertaken only to then destroy the fish, we are not in favour. We believe that the producers’ organisations should be made aware so that the fisheries plan is well established throughout the year and so that intensive fishing is not favoured only to subsequently destroy the fish. It is very important and perhaps requires an increase in the reference price and, in the end, a whole procedure, but we should like the resource to be well managed. Finally, I will conclude by saying that as far as the customs duties are concerned, we are not in favour of these duties being systematically abolished. An impact study should be undertaken, as Mrs Fraga Estévez proposes, and objective criteria should be established before deciding which customs duties will be abolished. Our group supports Mrs Fraga Estévez’s report and Mr Gallagher’s report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, all the points I have to make are addressed to the Council and even though there is no-one on the front bench I am sure the hardworking scribes will relay that information back to the Presidency and to all the Council delegations. If you look at the Haug report, Parliament wants to find a solution. We are actually looking for agreement with the Council on the way to get a good budget by the end of this year. Let us get that point clear. We are not looking for confrontation, we are actually looking for a way of cooperating together. But do not be fooled into thinking that we are not prepared to take hard decisions if necessary. It is pretty hard to get an agreement when the Council just ignores Article 20 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. Ever since the PDB was published by the Commission they have been duty bound to discuss with us the revision of the Financial Perspective which was proposed by the Commission. They have failed to do that. On two occasions we have asked them for trialogues and we have been refused. That makes it pretty difficult. And that will be at the forefront of our discussions at the trialogue this week and in the conciliation on 20 July. Whatever the Council votes on 20 July we will still be making that point in the autumn when it comes to our first reading. From the very first trialogue of this year with the Portuguese Presidency, the one thing that was obvious to everyone is that we need an agreement between the three institutions on the funding for the western Balkans. I am pretty sure Parliament has a position now. The Council's position is about 200 million less than ours, which means that we will not get an agreement on that and unless we have an agreement there is going to be a problem in how we fund the needs in category 4. It seems now that there might be some possibility of redeploying funds from the MEDA programme to help solve our problem. For an institution that tells us that what was agreed in Berlin was set in concrete, I think the Council has a bit of a cheek in moving large sums of money from the MEDA programme which they agreed 12 months ago and then lecturing us about what can and cannot be moved. Having said that, we are of course, prepared to listen to the Council, to hear what their suggestions are and I look forward to our trialogue this week and the conciliation meeting on 20 July.

Political group: PSE
Although elected by the inhabitants of the Belgian regions of Wallonia and Brussels, Mr President, I have as usual supported the continuation of European Parliament activities in Strasbourg. My support is based on my conviction that the presence of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, despite the passage of time and even present or future enlargements, is of considerable symbolic value. It is too easy to believe that old wounds have healed because they are no longer mentioned. On the contrary, history should make us wary of the ability of the past to resurface, sometimes suddenly, when it is least expected. This is why everyone in Europe, especially the young, needs the continuing presence of European democracy in the capital of Alsace.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, once again we are faced with a nonsensical disaster, and we are powerless to intervene. The nuclear accident of 30 September in the private nuclear power plant in Japan proved once more that the use of nuclear energy is dangerous and that it is imperative that we establish tough safety specifications. Of course, what is particularly noticeable is the fact that for a country with 51 reactors and an undertaking to establish a further 20, it does not have the appropriate knowledge and experience to deal with such events. Thirteen years after the great Chernobyl disaster, this nightmarish history seems to be repeating itself. In the immediate future, we shall find ourselves grieving for yet more innocent victims. Despite all that, instead of being ousted from the world energy market on environmental and financial grounds, the nuclear power industry is still continuing to expand The issue is a critical one and public opinion is sufficiently sensitive to it. The European Parliament, as a representative of European public opinion, has a duty to take heed of the messages and react accordingly. The objective of sustainable development stipulated in the Treaty of Amsterdam has once again provoked deep concern and forced us to rethink what we are doing. Current trends show that milder and renewable energy sources are increasingly becoming the only solution to the energy problem of post-industrial society.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, like all top class cyclists, President Prodi knows the right moment to break away from the pack. This is what he has done this morning in this speech which has given us all fresh hope. I would like to focus on two facts which produce opposing reactions: satisfaction at the Convention and bitterness at the outcome of the referendum in Denmark. These are two different results which, however, I feel are closely related and herald new times. Almost 90% of the population took part in the Danish referendum, a level which bears unequivocal witness to the citizens’ interest in contributing to European decision-making. On the other hand, the result, which we fully respect, may be an indication that the citizens do not yet feel in tune with the European ideal. The problem may well be a general one. It must be admitted that, after 55 years of Community life, there may well be a lack of feeling of belonging to anything other than a merely geographical Europe. The internal borders of today and the single currency of tomorrow are certainly useful, necessary symbols which will affect citizens’ everyday lives in a practical way and contribute to reinforcing the European ideal, but they will not fulfil the citizens’ call for greater heed to be paid to their views and for greater representation of their interests and, above all, of their hopes for the future. As we know, the objectives set at the current Intergovernmental Conference do not meet this demand fully, although the reform of the weighting of votes and the extension of qualified majority voting are steps in this direction. For a long time now, we have been talking about a post-Nice period during which institutions and operating procedures need to be reformed more effectively, also and especially with a view to enlargement. I and many others feel that the experiment of the Convention should be repeated, and that the formula adopted should be refined as we go along, so that the hope recently expressed by President Chirac that the reform processes will increasingly serve the purpose of bringing our institutions closer to the citizens will be fulfilled. The Convention was a Europe-wide success in terms of the formula adopted, the significant results achieved within the time allowed and the sense of accountability shown by all the participants. Let us endeavour to promote this model to ensure a future in which our hopes for Europe are realised.

Political group: PPE-DE