GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, it was quite depressing to listen to the representative of the Council, given that she appears to believe that the Middle East conflict is being played out between equal parties whom we ought to treat equally, adopting a policy of equidistance. Has the Council forgotten that we are dealing here with a militarily and economically superior occupying power which, in contravention of international law, is oppressing a native population and stealing its land? Moreover, the occupying power has the full support of the United States. Why, then, must the EU treat Israel and Palestine equally? Did we treat Milosevic and the Kosovans equally? Did we treat Mandela and the apartheid regime equally? In occupied Belgium, did you treat your resistance fighters in the same way as the occupying forces? No, equal treatment would naturally have been absurd in every one of those cases. In a report, our own conflict prevention network has recommended that we put economic pressure on Israel. One is led to wonder, Mr Patten, whether you decided to close down the CPN because it comes up with uncomfortable truths. According to yesterday’s Süddeutsche Zeitung, the EU – or, properly speaking, the big five Member States of the EU (we other, small countries are not asked) – is now, according to a non-paper, to pursue a Middle East policy approved by the United States. It is therefore a requirement that it be approved by the United States. What has become of the EU’s role as a defender of international law? What has become of the EU’s ambitions for an independent foreign policy? What has become of its ambitions to supplement its excellent economic and administrative support for the Palestinians with a powerful and well thought-out policy? They seem to have evaporated into thin air. That is something I regret.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, there is a certain air of depression here. I do not think that this accords at all with the good image we had of the conference on equality held in Finland under Finland’s Presidency and under the leadership of my party colleague, Eva Biaudet. What has happened to the good mood that was created then? It sounds, rather, as if, in the course of this discussion, we ought to use the image of a bicycle. The EU is like a bicycle which has to be kept moving all the time. If it is not moving, it does not go forwards. I have the feeling that this image could also be used for the work following the Beijing Conference. Not much has happened, and it is important that we should not be satisfied with the situation but instead establish goals for the future. What do we want to have achieved by the year 2005? What do we want our goal to be now? We are not satisfied with what has happened in our Member States. We are not satisfied with what has happened at EU level. We are not satisfied with what has happened within the UN. We must also infuse other UN organisations and other UN conferences with significantly more in the way of a perspective of equality. I was very pleased indeed that the applicant countries have also been invited to the conference which the Commissioner was talking about. I believe that we are also dissatisfied with how our own Parliament looks from the perspective of equality. Look, for example, at the numbers of Vice-Presidents and Presidents. The representation of women is not at all adequate. Where the applicant countries are concerned, there is an incredible amount to be done. Communism betrayed equality, and women in the applicant countries do not believe empty words about working towards equality. In many ways, the process has to be completely restarted in those countries. Poverty has especially affected women in the applicant countries. One frightening statistic we have heard is that, before the fall of communism, there were 13 million people in Eastern and Central Europe living below the poverty line. Today there are 120 million.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Mr Berlusconi was certainly wrong to talk of superiority and a clash of civilisations. These are words which do nothing to promote dialogue. Nevertheless, at this time when major alliances are being formed, I would like to send out from this House a personal message of great solidarity and support to the Afghan, Saudi, Iranian, Kuwaiti and Chechen women, to the women of all those countries who are currently fighting and will continue to fight in the coming years. It is my genuine hope that the formation of this great alliance to combat terrorism will not mean that the issue of these women’s rights will be relegated to second place yet again.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the principle of European cooperation in defence procurement is well established. I have witnessed many projects in my own region, such as the Tornado, Eurofighter, even Airbus and its derivatives. Indeed, for a time, I was minister responsible for Aerospace and therefore for Airbus, so I am one of those who is very keen that the A400M flies as soon as possible. The north-west of England has many deep and longstanding commitments in all its industry to working alongside skilled and professional colleagues throughout the European Union. They have hopes of participating in the future, for example, in the Galileo Project, whether or not it has a defence role. The defence industrial base is hugely important to the Union. For strategic military reasons of course but also for the advanced technology which can often be put to civilian use and for the contribution to local communities in terms of jobs, infrastructure and profit. But there is wastage. There are cost over-runs, gold-plating, extra-contractual obligations – bribes, in English – and a lot more. To use military jargon: there should be a C3 for defence industries: cooperation, coordination and cost control. I and many of my colleagues in the British Conservative Group have concerns about the EDSP in principle. For example, what is the control and restraint on arms exports going to do to the sovereign rights of Member States? What exactly is the European Armament Agency going to do? Why should absolute priority be given to fulfilling the capabilities requirement of the EDSP? But generally these objectives are to be welcomed and, with a little finessing, I am sure can work. I support those broad objectives.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is vital that we do everything possible in the fight against international terrorism and major criminality and this requires a sensitive balance to be struck between registration and individual freedom. Our allies in the United States are heavily committed in the fight against terrorism and we should do everything reasonable to support them. This resolution could impede their efforts and the British Conservatives cannot therefore support it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this debate and the reports are both a step in the right direction. Our 700 000 sports clubs are pillars of Europe's civil society. The Council Presidency has said that sport is education for life. Sport is a part of youth work, a part of education policy, a part of leisure activity, a part of health policy, a part of international understanding, a part of the information industry, and a part of economic affairs and of competition. Let me stress that I am saying a part. To reduce sport to an economic and competitive level is to deny its wider social significance. It has to be said that, up to now, Community law has been applied to sport in a very indiscriminate way, because it primarily treats sport as an economic activity. This means that insufficient account has been taken of the special hallmarks of sport and its 700 000 clubs, and of voluntary work done in areas like youth work and training for children and young people. Unless we can work successfully with children and young people, and unless Europe has an effective system of sports clubs, we cannot make our aspirations for popular sport a reality. Doris Pack has already referred several times to the consequent need to root sport in the EU Treaties and have it influence the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of sport was also mentioned in the conclusions of the Feira Summit. It is therefore both a logical and desirable consequence of all this that sport should be given a legal basis in the Treaty. We do not want to interfere in the affairs of Member States. Sport comes under the principle of subsidiarity. We simply want the overall social importance of sport to be recognised by the Commission and in European law, perhaps giving it its own budget heading so that it does not just have to be promoted through pilot projects. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Conservative MEPs accord a very great importance to issues of parental responsibility and the protection of children. It is, unfortunately, an unavoidable fact that the European Community is working towards the establishment of a common judicial area. However, we believe that parental responsibility should remain the right of a parent within the competence of individual Member States and, as such, cannot support a report which gives the Council the right to instruct Member States to hand over their autonomy in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the Socialist Group, Mrs McCarthy and I have tabled a total of 25 amendments to the proposal for a Directive on consumer credit, for which Mr Wuermeling is rapporteur. As we know, there was an initial stage of indecision, during which the rapporteur thought that the directive was being modified in committee, which led this proposed directive being referred back to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, but, fortunately, we managed to resolve the issue and finally the rapporteur decided, in agreement with us, to present it once again with a series of amendments. Our problem is lack of time. This term of office is coming to an end. During this term of office, Parliament has not been able to complete its examination of the proposed directive and we are limited to a first reading so that the next Parliament may have the opportunity to examine it in depth. Our concern is naturally not to kill off consumer credit – which, for better or for worse, has become an essential part of our lives – and also to provide a guarantee that credit will not end up being a noose around the consumer’s neck. Our amendments are of a different nature. Some, for example, relate to the legal basis. We believe it is important to introduce Article 153 as an additional legal basis in the field of consumer protection and, furthermore, we also believe it is important to point out certain elements in the definitions. In the definitions and above all in the adherence to certain basic principles, such as, for example, the APR – Annual Percentage Rate – which is a concept we have developed here, and we must prevent it from being replaced by other criteria which are much more difficult to understand. In conclusion, we hope that tomorrow's vote may lead to a directive which is clearer to the consumer and that on this basis the next Parliament can definitively approve this directive which is so important for all the European Union's consumers.

Political group: PSE
The Souchet report is quite positive and warrants our support. Firstly because of the importance it attaches to the participation of fishermen and their professional associations in the field of research and information on the state of fish stocks, given that fishermen are in favour of protecting the environment, since these are amongst the first people to suffer from its impairment. Secondly, I agree with the rapporteur’s statement that the pressure fishing places on stocks must not be dealt with in a uniform and global way and must instead take account of the particular characteristics of each fishing area and the specific nature of each fish species. The report rejects the use of rigid instruments such as the scrapping of vessels, which have irreversible consequences and major socio-economic effects and prefers other, more flexible instruments for managing stocks. I support the maintenance of public aid for modernising the fishing fleet, which has a direct impact on working conditions, on safety and on the quality of products, thereby rejecting a philosophy which, whilst claiming to be concerned about the environment, is attempting to undermine aid, in what we could call a liberal ‘greenification’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Averoff’s report on budgetary discipline is excellent and it affects the implementation of the next budget. The European Parliament has always been in favour of discipline. This means that Parliament has refrained from increasing its expenditure, although there may have been sums set aside for this in the margins, the Financial Perspectives or the basic agreement itself. Parliament has been very strict in the area of staff increases. The report now under discussion concerns agricultural expenditure. Agricultural expenditure is the EU’s largest item of expenditure, taking approximately 45% of the budget. For that reason, agricultural expenditure is the major consideration when we are discussing the EU budget. The ceiling for them is determined by a policy of agricultural expenditure. In practice, the ceiling is an interinstitutional agreement, which is clearly lower than the expenditure policy. This is another clear indication of Parliament’s accountability in matters of the budget. Agricultural expenditure is a rather sensitive issue within the EU, as agricultural policy is the only area where the EU has a direct influence on citizens’ livelihoods. In its practice of agricultural policy the EU has an exceptionally great responsibility. This particularly concerns the reduction of direct subsidies mentioned in Article 5(7). Such a situation cannot arise, as it concerns directly a reduction in the income of individual persons and is thus a curtailment of their constitutional rights. It would be the same as withholding pay. Agricultural expenditure now divides into compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure. LFA aid and environmental aid, in particular, are important in many less favoured agricultural areas. It follows that in future Parliament will have an even greater responsibility than before for agricultural policy. In this regard, the spirit of the report, which stresses the importance of cooperation between the Council and Parliament, is very good.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the European Parliament is today facing an important decision. Will we give our backing to forward-looking environmental and consumer protection or, as the amendments of Florenz, Lange and others cause me to fear, will we allow ourselves to become a servant of the German car industry? The credibility of Parliament as a champion of environmental protection is at stake. It would be shameful to say the least if the European Parliament were to draw back from the professions the governments of the 14 Member States and the European Commission have been making concerning manufacturer responsibility and environmental protection! The intention of Florenz and Lange in their amendments is obvious: to sabotage the directive! The proposed shared responsibility would undermine the polluter pays principle and detract from product innovation. In setting up numerous hurdles their sole aim is to hamper an efficient ecological material flow policy and by going down the road of type approvals they seek to delay the implementation of the directives by 12 years or more. This is totally unacceptable. I therefore appeal to the German delegates in particular to prevent major political damage occurring today! The red-green federal government has not exactly covered itself with glory in the debate on the End-of-life Vehicles Directive. Do not continue in this vein! The whinging about competitive disadvantages is laughable if it only concerns competitive disadvantages sustained by the German car industry. Start representing your people and not just your car manufacturers! Vote in favour of environmental and consumer protection and for innovation in the car and recycling industry!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, allow me to begin by expressing my condolences at the deaths which have taken place. I believe our first duty is to express our condolences to the families. But, while this is correct and essential, we cannot restrict ourselves to this expression of immediate human solidarity. People have been lost – in fact, in my country we still do not know how many – and this is unquestionably the most important thing; but we have also lost homes, landscapes, flora and fauna. Fire weakens the soil, and sooner or later the usual traditional storms, which we always expect on the Mediterranean coasts in September and October, will arrive, taking advantage of this weakened soil to erode these areas even further. Let us keep this in mind. There is no doubt that the heat wave and the drought have contributed to this disaster, but heat is not a new phenomenon in the Mediterranean. As has already been said, we have had heat for centuries. What is exceptional here are these temperatures which exceed anything we have known and, therefore, those people who were sceptical about climate change should perhaps give this some thought and governments, companies and individuals should take the appropriate measures. People are wondering what the European Union is doing in this respect. The Commissioner proposes mobilising the Solidarity Fund, and I agree – I am rapporteur for the Committee on Budgets, and there is therefore no doubt that I will be sympathetic to this proposal – but the Solidarity Fund, Commissioner, relates to natural disasters, and these are not just natural. There are arsonists and huge numbers of criminal cases, and we should also be asking ourselves what we are doing with the directive and with other legislation on environmental responsibility, how we apply them, how we transpose them and how they are implemented, and how we demand those responsibilities. I began in this Parliament in 1986. I believe my first action was a motion for a resolution calling for programmes for the prevention of forest fires in the Mediterranean. We went ahead with such schemes five years later, in 1992, and we had a ten-year programme running from 1992 to 2002. Why have appropriations always been left over, Commissioner? You have given us several good examples, but I, as rapporteur for budgets, would say to you that every year on the ramassage transfer there are appropriations which originate from that fund. Why? Because the governments have not used them? I believe this is very serious, because if they are not used, next year we will once again be in the same position. We must take action at Community level. The Member States have their responsibilities, but I believe the European Union has a duty here to take the lead and to impose measures; otherwise we will have to trust, as we do every year, that the winters put out the fires of the summer. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the starting point of my group’s deliberations on the issue of the Member’s Statute must be observing that there is a crisis of confidence between the citizens of most of our countries and the politicians. It is a major political challenge to resolve this crisis, perhaps the most important political challenge to be tackled in the near future. All our actions must take this objective into consideration. As it happens, the Confederal Group of the – believes it is necessary to ensure total transparency in the conditions governing the exercise of the parliamentary mandate and to dispel any idea of privileges for Members. In my view and in the view of the broad majority of my group, that requires two things: the first is that we need a statute in the very near future, in other words, some time before the June 2004 elections. Therefore, in the proposals that will be negotiated with the Council, we must not include provisions that we already know are unacceptable. Otherwise, we might as well be saying that we do not want a statute. The second requirement, in our view, is that the content of the proposals that we put forward must respect the positions of principle that I mentioned earlier – particularly transparency and the rejection of any notion of privilege. I do not intend to insult or offend anyone by saying this, Mr President. It is quite simply to explain why my group is opposed – and has already said so – to Parliament sending the document by the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Council in its current form. To give just two examples, Article 9 of the document claims to guarantee future Members virtual impunity. This is inexcusable, and the article regarding remuneration calls for a huge rise in allowances for most Members. At a time when the Union is advocating austerity measures to be imposed for employees and calling for public spending to be rationed, this might sound like a provocation. Obviously we find this unacceptable. Let us be honest therefore. Those of you who wish to come to a swift agreement with the Council on a Members’ Statute must not, at tomorrow’s vote, approve the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs in its current form as this report would obviously rule out the prospect of reaching an effective agreement on a statute. On the other hand, by voting in favour of the compromise resolution by Parliament’s three ‘pivotal’ groups, you will leave the way clear to seek an agreement that the broad majority of us, of you, say you want. Tomorrow, each of us will have the opportunity to shoulder our responsibilities. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we object on principle to the accelerating growth of European Union military structures outside the NATO Alliance, with all their attendant costs and politically divisive intent. We believe that the duplication of decision-making bodies and the development of a military staff separate from NATO will inevitably exacerbate policy differences between allies, to the detriment of the transatlantic relationship and the long-term security of our people. The European Union should be focusing its efforts on economic, administrative and humanitarian contributions to crisis management, to complement the military capabilities which should properly be a NATO responsibility. The European Union has not yet learned to deliver and manage its external assistance programmes efficiently or to properly spend the resources that have been allocated to these purposes. Now it wants more money to spend on yet another ambitious and seriously misguided project. Parliament is being asked to approve a draft supplementary and amending budget of nearly EUR 10 million to fund staff and equipment for the separate European Union military bodies. In addition to some 90 staff redeployed from other tasks or seconded from Member States, 51 extra personnel are now to be recruited to expand the European Union military structures. Can we have an assurance that this total of 141 personnel will not be exceeded? How long will it be before there is a further increase in staff for the European Union military structures? Mr Blair tells people at home that European Union's defence policy is all about strengthening NATO. Mr Hoon has even said that there is no concept of a European rapid reaction force as such. From what I hear, everyone speaking on this side of the Channel has an entirely different perspective. The aim is to establish an autonomous European Union military capability to underpin a distinctive EU foreign policy in which the Americans are not involved – in due course, a European army. That is a reality. That is what it is all about. It is very dangerous. Tonight we are discussing an unnecessary EUR 10 million. I wonder how long it will be before we are discussing a defence budget of EUR 10 billion or more. The development of an autonomous EU military capability, separate from NATO, has come about as a direct result of initiatives by the British Labour Government in 1998. Now their project has run out of control. We know who is to blame and we cannot support this budget.

Political group: PPE-DE