GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would commend Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen on their sterling work. We can be all the more hopeful in that the involvement of the distinguished figure of Commissioner Barnier bodes well for cooperation between Parliament and the Commission. As regards the draft: Firstly, it maintains political consistency in Parliament’s views in that it adopts the position taken in the report written by Mr Méndez de Vigo and myself that the European Union is both a union of peoples and a union of states. The survival of European integration depends largely on the balance between this dual legitimacy. Secondly, the draft quite rightly calls for the adoption of qualified majority voting as regards decision making in the Council, provided, however, that we adhere to the unanimity rule for constitutional matters and for other absolutely fundamental matters, i.e. those which have a bearing on the sovereignty of the Member States. Thirdly, for the first time, the draft proposes a cogent argument for a foreign policy in that it sets two essential conditions: firstly, that it guarantees the external borders of the Member States as borders of the European Union and secondly, it proposes that any State which is directly affected should have the right to object. Fourthly, on the sensitive issue of flexibility, for which, in my view, appropriate arrangements were made by the Amsterdam European Council, a consensual solution is being sought through amendments. However, I would like to appeal to Parliament to tread cautiously here. Experience shows that the sole, or even the main, danger for the European Union is not from dissenting Member States blocking actions, but from the lax regulation of this flexibility which can lead to a two-speed Europe or worse. I strongly recommend that Parliament votes by a large majority in favour of the excellent Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report.

Political group: PSE
I would like first of all to reject the argument made by a number of people here that to increase own resources is to increase the burden of taxation on the citizens of Europe. That is, of course, not necessarily true. The responsibilities of the European Union are based on the principle that there are some things we can do more efficiently at European level. If we decide to transfer responsibility for agricultural industry from the Member States to the European Union and discharge that responsibility more efficiently, the end result could in fact be a reduction in the burden of taxation. Similarly, if we decided to transfer responsibility, say, for development cooperation, from the Member States to the European Union, I believe we could achieve immensely more in the world with the same amount of money and we could increase own resources while at the same time not increasing the burden of taxation on the citizens of the European Union. We talk about democracy and transparency. First of all I would say that anything that we decide in a democratic way, through the institutions of the Union, about own resources, is what own resources are. If the European Union, in a democratic process, decides that own resources are simply a straight percentage of GDP collected by the Member States and passed over in a lump sum, that is fair enough: that is what own resources are and that is democratic. The more elements we drag in, the more un-transparent we make the system, the more difficult it becomes. That is why I am not concerned in the least by the 10% or the 25%. If we have a fixed figure that the European Union needs as own resources, then obviously if we leave the Member States more of what we call the traditional own resources, we have to collect more of that as a percentage of GNP. So this argument is not important all. The balance of advantage, or the balance of returns to Member States, is extremely difficult to calculate. Let me make one further point on this. If you look at Holland and Germany, on whose behalf there was so much crying in this Parliament, you will find that the single market has given them immense benefits and they have had extremely positive balances in their trade with the rest of the Union over the years. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the rapporteur expresses satisfaction with the European institutions’ scrutiny of corporate mergers. This self-satisfaction is ridiculous, because the heads of the large companies that engage in these activities pay infinitely more heed to the interests of their major shareholders than to the opinion of the European Parliament. By affirming that these mergers boost competitiveness and hence economic growth and employment, the report reproduces the employers’ mantra that what is good for entrepreneurs and their shareholders is good for society. However, one need only compile a catalogue of the mergers that have taken place, listing the job cuts and plant closures they have entailed, counting the thousands of workers consigned to the dole queue and the entire regions condemned to economic ruin, to demonstrate clearly that the interests of shareholders are diametrically opposed to those of the majority of society who work for their living. The Vivendi affair, the latest in a long line of similar cases in the United States, shows how your system transforms production into financial capital, into a mere object of speculation. The stock exchange makes the rich grow richer and impoverishes some speculators, but most of all it impoverishes society. Wealth is not born of speculation but of work, and the only purpose of the stock exchange is to squander the real fruits of labour and convert them into false values.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you may be quite sure that the European Parliament will play its part with all the power at its disposal and with great commitment – a commitment shared by all the groups and by all the committees that are particularly concerned with Heading III, because it involves over thirty codecision procedures that will be affected by these decisions. Being conscious of the political responsibility involved in ensuring that the timetable for enlargement is kept to, we have also indicated our willingness to adapt the financial perspective, and to do so if possible before the enlargement agreements are put to the vote. It is quite clear, though, that you can take it as read, in view of the manifest legal problems that we have to work through at present, and of the opinions and interpretations with which experts have provided us, that we will do everything possible to save and defend Parliament's rights within the institutional structure. No decision will be taken here on the basis of an exchange of rights for money. In tomorrow's trialogue, the Council has the choice of doing a deal with us or accepting responsibility for the legal, institutional and budgetary problems that the coming months and years will bring. It is obvious that, despite all their efforts, the Commission and the Council have underestimated the institutional dead-end into which their stubborn refusal to let go of Annex XV and its integration into primary law have led us all. This is not just about Article 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, but about the many statements that were constantly being made on the basis of last November's agreement, and about common statements arising from many codecision procedures on the multiannual programmes, which repeatedly declared that adjustment of the financial perspective would, at this point in time, be carried out on a joint basis. Mr President, please permit me another reference to Heading VII. It is important to me that we hold fast to the de facto impossibility of carrying out a revision by transferring the aid programme for Turkey from Heading IV to Heading VII and then leaving everything in Heading VII just as it is. We therefore still regard adaptation of Heading VII as a precondition. This is about pre-accession aid, but also about special and privileged partnerships with the European Union's neighbours. It is with this in mind that we will, tomorrow, try to negotiate constructively and find a way on which we can agree.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to remind this House that in Agenda 2000 we give a high priority to youth education and training but this priority is not reflected within the budget allocation to the Youth Action Programme. Yet this programme is about investing in our future, investing in young people who will become, as we have heard today, the Europeans of tomorrow. Through these action programmes we will change young lives, offering hope and options where before there were none. In my region, the West Midlands of England, thousands of young people have benefited. I want more to benefit, not fewer. Finally, it is rather apt, following Mrs Scallon, that I say this: let us remind ourselves in this House that these young people will become the generation that finally rid our continent of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and the other discriminations which shame us all! It is our duty to support this report and to support the youth programmes. And I would point out to Mrs Scallon that the term “Family” has been used politically to exclude more people than it has ever been used to include. I congratulate the rapporteur. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Treaty of Nice was a coup on the part of the large countries. They gained more votes at the expense of small countries. Large countries were also given a new right of veto based on their population. The Treaty of Nice was justified by the needs of enlargement. The leaders of small countries have approved the principle according to which the number of votes of large countries grows, even if the EU is not enlarged. This misjudgement on the part of the leaders of small countries alone is sufficient grounds to reject the Treaty of Nice. Declaration 23 adopted in Nice will increase federalist pressure for the EU to adopt a superstate constitution and use the convention method in its preparation. This is an unparliamentary and undemocratic method. The Treaty of Nice supports a federal republic along the lines of the German model and does not recognise the demand of the French Prime Minister for a Europe of independent states. This report supports the development of a federal state and must be rejected, and national parliaments should reject the Treaty of Nice. I wish every success to the democrats in Ireland, whose referendum offers the opportunity to reject the treaty through direct democracy. Other countries do not dare to ask their citizens, who are the sole subjects of democracy. IN THE CHAIR: INGO FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, what is at stake in this debate is whether the EU's commitment to sustainable development in theory, actually means something in practice, whether when push comes to shove, we are prepared to make some very difficult decisions. Sustainable development is supposed to be about integrating economic development with environmental concerns. That is what the EU has signed up to in countless treaties from the Rio Earth Summit onwards. That is what Article 6 of our own EC Treaty obliges us to do – to integrate those policies. At the heart of this debate is the issue of economic development coming right up against environmental constraints. We are going to be increasingly faced with hard decisions on this. It will be a very good test of what our commitment to sustainable development really means. At a recent plenary session, we talked a lot about coherence in EU policies. Members from all over this House were rightly emphasising how important policy coherence is, yet here we have an outstanding example of policy incoherence. That is why the are supporting very strongly this resolution from the Environment Committee.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, of course, like all the previous speakers, and particularly the rapporteurs, I am in favour of a strengthened Euro-Mediterranean partnership. This partnership is of interest both to the countries bordering the Mediterranean and to the whole of the European Union. And I feel that we should focus, first and foremost, on our relations with the Arab Maghreb Union. The Maghreb Union remains a pious hope, however, with the creation of this Union encountering a series of obstacles which, unfortunately, have not yet been overcome. In a few days’ time, the meeting of the AMU Heads of State will be held in Algiers and I would like to highlight one of the obstacles which continues to sour relations between Algeria and Morocco. I wish to discuss the conflict in Western Sahara and the future of the Western Saharan people. The rapporteurs quite rightly touched upon this. As chair of the ad hoc delegation sent on behalf of Parliament to this region, to Tinduf and El-Ayun, I cannot stress enough that we must find a political solution, it is a matter of urgency. The fate of thousands of Western Saharan men, women and children is at stake, people who, for 26 years, have been living in extremely harsh conditions and are awaiting a solution that recognises their rights and their dignity. To resolve the situation, a good-will agreement must firstly be reached between the main countries that are directly involved, namely Algeria and Morocco. I sincerely hope that the meeting between the AMU Heads of State will enable progress to be made in this area.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I welcome this proposal. It is time that we did something on detergents as there is a major problem associated with detergents and their impact upon water quality across Europe. Throughout our water systems, our great rivers and even down to the sea we see the effects of these substances being pumped into the environment, on a daily basis. I therefore welcome the proposals extending the testing on biodegradability, making biodegradability regulations stricter generally and requiring clearer labelling and information. All of this is good, as it simplifies and clarifies the administrative procedures in the proposal. Indeed, the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs have worked well together to come up with a package that is worthy of the support of this House. I would ask one question, however. Has enough been done, in particular with regard to the issue of phosphates? Phosphates are the key question buried inside this proposal. Phosphates are the trigger and often the clear cause of eutrification in many different waters across the European Union. We know that detergents are a major source of phosphates. Taking phosphates out of detergents would probably bring down the level of phosphates in our rivers, lakes and oceans to the point where we would not have to be concerned about the problem of eutrification again. This proposal does not fully address that question. We may have to revisit it in future. We cannot leave it for another day. If we do, we will see that as a consequence of development in eastern and central Europe, there will be a continuing problem of eutrification caused by phosphates in rivers across the whole of the Union. If there is a problem with this proposal as it stands, we have not done enough on phosphates. We must act on that issue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the resolution initiated by my colleagues, Mr Van Orden and Mr Deva, concerns a matter that is highly topical and most urgent even though this is the first occasion on which Parliament has devoted time to the tragic conflict in Sri Lanka which has been going on for over 17 years. The resolution sends out a powerful message. The fighting has to stop. The parties have to get round the table and reach a reasonable solution that will last. In this regard, it can only be helpful for the international community, whether it is the UN, the Commonwealth or the European Union, to maintain a strong and current interest in developments. This legitimate interest should not interfere with the work that has already been carried out by the Indian and Norwegian governments whose representatives have been engaged for some time now in the difficult and sensitive task of brokering negotiations. I know that in spite of the dreadful atrocities that have been committed against the civil population and against members of successive administrations, the Sri Lankan government at the highest levels is willing to enter into negotiations and is setting no conditions. We must all recognise the overriding importance of maintaining the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. Beyond that there are many political options that can fruitfully be pursued. The international community, including the EU, should be ready to provide substantial material support in due course for whatever solution is worked out and to assist the economic and social reconstruction of the country after so many years of conflict. Above all, Parliament’s resolution is unequivocal in its condemnation of terrorism. This is a scourge which affects us all. There is no excuse for the indiscriminate acts of murder and mayhem carried out by the so-called Tamil Tigers against children and ordinary civilians going about their daily business and against democratically elected politicians. This is an attack on civilised society and the democratic institutions which we all value so highly. Inevitably, the people most effected and most helpless in these situations are the nationals of the target country who have fled the conflict and are trying to lead new lives in Europe. These people are most vulnerable to threats and intimidation from organisations acting on behalf of terrorists such as the Tamil Tigers. Of course, there are many other terrorist groups whose activities are sustained in a similar way. They cleverly avoid breaking the laws of the host country and so can continue their ghastly activities with impunity. This situation must change. I commend the resolution on Sri Lanka to this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should like to congratulate Mrs Gillig and thank the Committee on Employment for adopting most of our proposals. The Committee on Industry sets great store by respect for core labour standards and considers that the situation can only be improved by maintaining a fairer international trade policy, restricting speculation and reducing foreign debt. It welcomes any progress made towards recognition of the universal nature of core labour standards but is concerned about the impact of accelerated liberalisation of trade and the financial sector. The Committee on Industry welcomes the European Commission's moves to place the issue on the agenda of international bodies, in response to calls by the European Parliament and the trade union and citizens' movements, as expressed in Seattle, Genoa and elsewhere. It notes that no progress was made in Doha and calls on the European Commission to revise its strategy and on the European Union to intensify dialogue with international organisations. It is in favour of imposing sanctions, especially on transnational companies that profit from failure to observe core labour standards and welcomes the use of the generalised system of preferences. Our committee also considers that WTO member countries have a particular responsibility to observe core labour standards and calls on the WTO to clearly state that sanctions imposed by the ILO will not be considered incompatible with the WTO treaties. Finally, we call on the European Commission and the Council to promote compliance with other labour rights, such as social security, the right to stable employment and prevention of accidents at work. Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to draw your attention to a number of points in our opinion which I consider are extremely important but which were not adopted by the Committee on Employment. I have taken the initiative of repeating these points in Amendments Nos 9 to 12, which I urge you to support. They contain references to fairer trade relations, the imposition of sanctions on transnational companies that profit from failure to observe core labour standards, the need to respect other labour rights and a specific reference to the movements in Seattle, Genoa and so on.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We and those responsible, all deserve a pat on the back for this marvellous programme. Allow me to start with what has become a rather lovely tradition, that is, by scattering roses over the rapporteur; well done, Doris! We agree with the criticisms and I shall not enumerate them again; perhaps I should but one minute does not give me enough time. What is my brief here? Obviously to canvass for this marvellous programme. It is not a glossy brochure, it is grass-roots policy in the flesh, it is a European answer to numerous questions. But the answers which Socrates gives are not quite enough. Socrates does not resolve any fundamental problems. Socrates helps, it airs political questions and brings them to the public's attention, but does not absolve the Member States of responsibility. I would gladly hear more from our Member States on this, not just on Socrates, but on their responsibility, on what education means for Europe. I would be glad to engage in a public debate on a European area of education with the people in charge of education. Do you know what we have achieved with Socrates, quite apart from the tangible results? The names of old Europeans are being used: Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig – these old names trip off the lips of young people as easily as the words to a rap song. We really have achieved what we set out to do. Doris Pack said that Socrates is there for us from the cradle to the grave. I would therefore like to see us start a bit earlier, not at school age, but with infants. Because, as everyone has said, learning foreign languages is so incredibly important, it is of immense importance to all of us and we know that it starts in the nursery. Perhaps our next step should be in the direction of the kindergarten. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Ibn-Khaldoun was one of those major historical figures who demonstrate how much we in Europe owe to the Arab and Islamic world. We accordingly have a duty to give our support to a man, Professor Ibrahim, who has worked in the tradition of Ibn-Khaldoun, and we should make it clear – and this is also something that we owe, as it were, to the heritage of Ibn-Khaldoun – that there are not two concepts of human rights, one for Europe and one for Egypt, but that there is a single concept of human rights here, which is also appropriate in common cultural and historical terms and which should apply universally today. That is precisely why we owe it to both Professor Ibrahim and the Egyptian people to get involved here. First, to get Professor Ibrahim released and second, as his health is poor, to secure help for him. However, the third issue is for us to very clearly advocate close cooperation between Egypt and the European Union. Egypt is one of our most important partners in the Mediterranean area. As is evident from the current political crisis, Egypt, alongside Morocco and Turkey, is our most important ally in the Islamic world in the Mediterranean area. Precisely because Egypt is a partner and an ally and not a debtor country or a country we do not want anything to do with, and precisely because Egypt is an important ally, we should not mince our words in talking to them, as is usual between friends, and we should plead the case of persecuted minorities and persecuted people in general. Above all we should support those people within the Egyptian State and within the Egyptian Government who want to strengthen human rights rather than demolish them. Egypt has a great tradition of which I have personal experience from the times when Anwar al Sadat and President Mubarak addressed this House. We are taking about important partners, and I believe that we should continue along that path and support Professor Ibrahim. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE