GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on the military and indeed civilian facility particularly with the forthcoming Nice Summit. I would also like to put on record my appreciation of the first Minister of Defence to address the European Parliament. It is indeed an historic occasion. One of the most important things that was emphasised here this evening was said by Commissioner Patten earlier on in the evening, when he emphasised that we are talking about military facility and not an EU army. I do not think that we can underline that sufficiently. Even some of our literature that has been circulated with reports on our discussions here tonight, talks about rapid reaction forces instead of a rapid reaction facility, for example. I think if we could clearly understand that, then a lot of the concerns might indeed evaporate. What a pity, I say to my colleagues Van Orden and others, because my colleagues just across the pond, the Irish Sea, have so much to offer in this area: the tradition, the experience and the practice. Maybe when the election is over we will get a more balanced debate. They have so much to offer. I am just disappointed with the line they are taking on it. I will say no more. I am very proud however of the Irish agreement and the Irish contribution. As a small nation that has been traditionally 'neutral', I am delighted we are in there at the table and doing what we can, given the mandate of the Irish people. There is no nation in Europe that is philosophically neutral. There are some nations that are militarily neutral and there is a difference. Ireland has never been philosophically neutral. We have a very strong view on the atrocities and the lack of human rights in some parts of the world and we are not slow to state that. We have a very strong view of what we can contribute in peacekeeping and in peace-enforcing, and I hope we will always be able to contribute to that. We will never be philosophically neutral nor should that ever be confused with military neutrality.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, combating terrorism requires global action that takes account of the various threats the world faces today and which are, unfortunately, myriad. I therefore share the concerns over the issue of maritime transport expressed by the Commission and by the rapporteur and which are clearly implied in the proposal for a regulation we are now examining, which seeks to enhance ship and port facility security, as part of the war on terrorism. Such action would necessarily involve the implementation, throughout the European Community, of the international security measures adopted by the International Maritime Organisation and consequently defining a common European policy in this field. This would entail stepping up levels of protection whilst at the same time ensuring that there are no differences of interpretation amongst the various Member States. In this context, I should like to refer to three issues that I believe are crucial. First of all, with regard to extending the measures adopted under the IMO on domestic shipping and the relevant port facilities, I wish to highlight the need for setting a timetable that is sufficiently long to enable the countries concerned to comply with the rules laid down. The inclusion of national maritime traffic should furthermore take account of the assessment of the risk in relation to the level of danger facing the vessel and/or cargo, and in relation to the vulnerability of the vessel or port facility, set against a cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, as regards implementation and monitoring compliance, which are covered by Article 10 of the proposal for a regulation, I believe that these tasks should be carried out by the competent authorities of each Member State. Because Community inspections are necessary, these must be undertaken solely under the regulation’s legal base and always in cooperation with the authorities of each Member State. Lastly, I wish to point out that, in accordance with the regulation establishing the European Maritime Safety Agency, this body has no power to act in the field of security as such. This aspect should be considered in a much-needed revision of this regulation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the enlargement of the European Union is looming, and the report by the Court of Auditors leaves us in no doubt that there is still a great deal of work to be done in the candidate countries too. If we are to do all this on the already modest budgets we have at present, how are we to manage when these countries actually become members and start participating in the common agricultural policy and the Structural Funds? My group therefore feels it is imperative to start implementing our rules on financial control in the candidate countries without delay. We cannot start treating them as fully-fledged members soon enough in this respect. I would therefore ask the Court of Auditors to give us more information about this in future reports, so that we do not have to face any nasty surprises come accession day. Madam President, it is all very well having one representative from the Council here, but that is not enough, because – as has already been pointed out on several occasions – the majority of serious errors have been committed in the Member States. The Committee on Budgetary Control can no longer tolerate the impression being created, year in year out, that ‘it is a real shambles in Brussels’, when the main culprits are sitting in the capital cities. That is why, Mr Karlsson, we are asking you to give us a better idea of who is doing well and who is making a mess of it. Only then, i.e. if those responsible are named, will we be able to tackle them and really get down to putting Europe’s house in order, so as to win back our citizens’ trust. Finally, winning back that trust is also an important aspect, and I hope that by the end of this year, Parliament will have a clear statute, so that never again will these delegates be shown in a poor light in a Court of Auditors report. In order to achieve this, I also wish you, Madam President, a great deal of staying power, and would like to thank you for the commitment you have already shown to date.

Political group: ELDR
At this historic moment, it falls to the European Parliament to be the first of the European institutions to approve the accession of ten new Member States. The euphoria of this momentous decision, however, must not cause us to lose sight of the current state of EU policies and of the challenges that lie ahead. Many of the reforms on which the survival of the Union is believed to depend, such as the reform of the institutions, the Structural Funds and the common foreign and agricultural policies, have still not been enacted, financial commitments have not been made to the acceding countries, and the quest for deeper European unity is faltering. For years the have been campaigning for enlargement and consolidation of the EU. We want to see the powers of the Union increased in the realms of environmental policy, social policy, foreign policy, etc. The Iraq conflict, however, has cruelly exposed the discord that exists within the EU. The position adopted by representatives of the governments of some applicant countries has also been surprising. Be that as it may, the people of those countries must not be made to suffer for the lack of political courage shown by the EU leaders or for the statements made by their own Heads of Government. For this reason I shall be voting today in favour of the accession of ten new Member States. The real challenge for politicians in the EU – and for civil society too – consists in rallying the necessary majorities within the Convention behind a sustainable European Union. As far as the Iraq conflict is concerned, what applies to Spain also applies to Poland: other political solutions must be found at the next elections.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Despite the pre-summit hype in the run-up to Barcelona, which suggested that the agenda would be considerably skewed in favour of neo-liberalism and structural reform, the outcome maintains the essentials of the policy mix established at Lisbon, namely mutually supported economic reform, full employment, social cohesion and, from Gothenburg, the issue of sustainable development. The one element that we would have liked to have seen further developed in the overall mix at Barcelona is that of sustainable development. We think that it needs to be stitched into the other policy strands and cannot simply be dealt with as an add-on. Barcelona did, of course, touch upon the issue of liberalisation concerning the opening of the electricity and gas markets. I have two points to make in that respect. The first is that, alongside the liberalisation debates, we very much welcome the key decisions reached in Barcelona to guarantee high-quality public services in the European Union as a fundamental guarantee for citizens, and in the interests of territorial and social cohesion. The second is that, for us, liberalisation in sectors such as energy is not an end itself. It must be harnessed to the achievement of improved qualitative and sustainable growth, improved social cohesion and a better, cheaper, more effective service for citizens. Prime Minister Aznar spoke about targets for 'inter-connectiveness'. From what I hear, however, liberalisation in Spain has led to a number of broken connections, with blackouts occurring in Madrid and in other areas. That is the sort of thing we need to avoid. The EPP and ourselves have tabled a compromise text which I hope will win support in this House. There are two further points from that text which I would like to emphasise. First, there is a need to strengthen Europe-wide economic investment policy in order to encourage public and private investment as a crucial element in the stimulation of economic activity. Second, there is a need to recognise that labour market reforms have to be geared towards the creation of better-quality jobs, with a clear emphasis on the requirement for substantial investment in people and their potentials. This the point Parliament made in the Bullman report. This investment particularly needs to go towards education, training and life-long learning. The proposal adopted by the Commission today concerning temporary agency workers is an important contribution in this respect. It will help promote a proper balance between flexibility for enterprises and a proper degree of security for workers working within and moving between those enterprises. It will also bring about improved employability. It is therefore a very welcome step. The essentials of the policy mix remain in place, and the compromise resolution which is tabled before us clearly sets out the steps we need to take in the weeks and months ahead. I hope the House will support it.

Political group: PSE
The fact that we have voted against Council reform does not imply that we prefer the way it works at present. It is not the constitutional form of the Council that is important – although much could be said about its anti-democratic character – but its essence. The basic reason for the Council's existence is to manage the collective affairs of the property-owning classes in the various European countries, so that their respective interests do not conflict and that a general consensus may be established. The European Council, though, no more represents the interests of the majority of the EU's population than the various governments represent the real interests of their own peoples. The apparently democratic way in which national governments are appointed after elections does not prevent them being at the service of their countries' big bosses. All the more is this true of Europe's executive, which is not even obliged to seek election. We do not guarantee the present or the eventually reformed functioning of the European institutions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office, could I press you a little further on this? You briefly alluded to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, which, rather surprisingly, on 6 January 2004, President Assad effectively admitted to possessing. Could you tell me what kind of mandate you will give the Commission to incorporate clauses that are specifically salient and relevant to the issue of Syria's biological and chemical weapons stock, and whether the Syrians will be encouraged strongly within these clauses to effectively dismantle them and avoid any proliferation of such dangerous weapons?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the United Kingdom is largely outside the provisions of the Schengen acquis. The policy of the British Conservatives towards Schengen is therefore rather like our policy towards the euro. We wish our neighbours and allies well, but it is not our businesses to tell them how to run initiatives which we have no intention of joining ourselves. Accordingly, as is becoming traditional on these occasions, my party will be abstaining. There is another matter which is becoming traditional on these occasions. No report on Schengen is complete without a ritual complaint about the failure of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic to take part. Thus, in Mr Coelho's otherwise admirable report, we have paragraph 2, which in a somewhat brusque tone calls on those two states to abolish their border controls. This Parliament has repeatedly expressed the viewed, echoed by Commissioner Vitorino, that the UK opt-out is illegal under the terms of the Single European Act. I believe that this is legally flawed, but that is not my point today. My point rather, is that by persistently seeking to challenge a derogation which was clearly understood by all sides at the time, this Parliament is acting in bad faith. It is worth recalling the circumstances in which the Schengen Accord was built into the treaties. That decision, like all treaty changes, required unanimity. Without the consent of the United Kingdom, Schengen would have had to continue to exist within a separate legal framework. The British government took the view that if other states wished to go ahead on their own using the institutions and mechanisms of the European Communities then it was not Britain's place to hinder them. Accordingly, it allowed the other states to push ahead within the treaties, but only subject to a clear guarantee that the UK's own border controls would not be affected. That guarantee was written in black and white into the Amsterdam Treaty. No sooner had Amsterdam come into force however, than the European Commission and Parliament began to question the opt-out. Not for the first time, the UK had allowed other states to use the common procedures of the European treaties only for those states promptly to start clamouring for Britain's inclusion. As with Schengen, so with the social chapter and so with economic and monetary union – in all three cases Britain consented to a new EU initiative on the clear understanding that it would not be affected, only for its derogation later to be disputed. This surely is no way for the Union to proceed. After all if opt-outs are no longer legally reliable, the only alternative is a rather more promiscuous use of the national veto and that I submit would be even more objectionable to the integrationist majority in this House than it is to me.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, more than six months have now passed since the tragic floods in Venezuela. As a member of the European Parliament’s ad hoc delegation, I was able to witness the terrible effects of what is considered to be the worst natural disaster that has ever occurred in Latin America. It was something that you had to see with your own eyes to believe. As striking as the photographs and television pictures in the media were, they merely hinted at the true scale of the disaster. We were also able to see the fantastic cooperation work that the NGOs are carrying out with people affected by the floods. This emergency humanitarian aid provided by the NGOs could not have occurred without the Commission’s financial support and I therefore wish to praise all those who made it possible. However, the priority now must be to reconstruct the whole area affected and to stimulate economic recovery. A new plan for the region must include the rebuilding of homes and every kind of infrastructure and the provision of incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises, which were completely destroyed and many of which will have to start again from scratch. I am aware that the task of reconstruction is colossal and that is perhaps why it has been so slow. Only a few roads have been cleared. Water and electricity supplies have been restored to some extent, but little more has been done, and the people who have been affected are despairing of the delay. Thousands of them are still dependent on food aid to survive. It is vital to replace the thousands of jobs destroyed by the floods. The Venezuelan Government will need a great deal of support if it is to succeed in this Herculean task. With regard to the task of reconstruction, which cannot be delayed, the Commission must offer the same level of support it provided in terms of emergency humanitarian aid for countries affected by Hurricane Mitch, or something similar. We therefore urge the Commission to provide a significant financial contribution over the next five years. Apart from a basic obligation to show solidarity, the historical ties that bind us to Venezuela and the stability of democracy in that country demand this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, organised crime is often taken by the public to mean spectacular killings such as the murder of Judge Falcone or drug trafficking. But in truth it means something different. Organised crime is the repeated, systematic committing of crimes by exploiting professional structures; for example, the systematic theft of cars, the systematic theft of credit cards and the like. This kind of crime has two consequences: firstly, the damage is considerable because it does not correspond to a single act, but to an accumulation of acts. Secondly, the money gained from the criminal acts is so great that it cannot be used up unobtrusively by private individuals. At conferences I always explain it as follows: organised criminals simply cannot eat, drink and be merry to a sufficient degree to get rid of the money inconspicuously. That is why they try to disguise the money acquired by criminal means and to pass it off as money which has ostensibly been acquired legally. This is called money laundering. Dirty money is turned into respectable money. Anyone who prevents this from happening, or at least makes it considerably more difficult, cuts organised crime to the quick, stunts its growth and damages its ability to propagate itself. Mr Lehne referred to the fact that we already had a directive on this very early on which harmonised standards in the European Union. Nevertheless, this new directive is necessary to allow more recent developments to be taken into account. We think it is good that the directive is not just being extended to banks but also to other businesses or professions which might be abused for money laundering purposes, and here the problems associated with the liberal professions have been satisfactorily resolved in our view. We also think it is good that all forms of organised crime, and not only drug trafficking, are to be regarded as predicate offences. We have attached particular importance to the inclusion of dealers in precious stones, dealers in luxury goods with a value in excess of EUR 50 000 and auctioneers. What surprised us rather was the fact that the Commission did not – although the problem is obvious – integrate electronic money into the directive from the word go. It would seem that the aggressive civil service intelligentsia within the Commission, who put a positive spin on anything to do with the Internet, drown out any critical murmurings about it also being possible to abuse this technology for other purposes. The Council has disappointed us: so far it has not decided anything at all; it is behaving like a broody ox. I therefore say to the Council: make your decision quickly now! Money laundering is far too serious a matter to entrust to the cowboys and Indians games of small-time Councils of national ministers!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have been arguing over this subject for ten years, and I would not miss a round, even if I had to buy a ticket to enter the House, not least in order to be able to bear witness that we are still at the same point. The positions are identical to those of ten years ago. It was inevitable, therefore, that we should turn to conciliation as a solution; in the meantime, however, we again find ourselves having to say ‘no’ to a Council proposal, which is identical to the previous one, above all because, in this proposal, not the slightest account has been taken of what has happened in Parliament, that is of the broad consensus which, at first reading, rejected any possibility of extending the ecopoints system beyond the normal expiry date fixed for 31 December this year. On that occasion, the European Parliament once again condemned the infringement of the basic principle of the free movement of goods, while specifying not unreasonable procedures for guaranteeing transit and providing adequate protection for the environment. We are familiar with all the technical proposals. However, while we are here trying to reach a difficult agreement on ecopoints, what is the Governor of North Tyrol planning? He is inventing a rule on the basis of which he will ban the transit of lorries of over seven and a half tonnes for a vast range of goods, practically all those in the construction sector, with effect from 1 August on the section between the municipalities of Kundl and Ampass: almost a joke in the debate we are having. Fortunately, the Commission, this time, at least – congratulations, Commissioner! – took timely action: it immediately instituted an infringement procedure on 24 June, and we are now waiting to see whether there will be a judgment by the Court of Justice or whether the Tyrol will reconsider and withdraw this measure, which is directly in conflict with Article 38 of the Treaty on the free movement of goods. However, it is important to act quickly because it is necessary to avoid another type of damage in addition to environmental damage: economic loss, which is detrimental to the interests of all haulage contractors, many of which have actually gone bankrupt in the meantime. I live in the region immediately on the other side of the Brenner Pass, and we always wonder how on earth the Austrians can presume to command this enormous respect. Why is it, seeing as we suffer just as much damage, that it has never occurred to any of us to invent ecopoints or strange things of that nature?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there are eleven days to go until Christmas, and today in Sweden and Finland they are celebrating the festival of Lucia. I would like to thank Mr Liikanen for what was in all respects a very positive and excellent reply. May I nevertheless request a few clarifications? Is it certain that ECPAT can continue their project next year, i.e. in 2001? Is it also certain that the budget item used for measures for fighting child sex tourism is not being deleted but can still be used? Do the funds that are being granted involve more money, or is it a question of the same level as before? I would like to say with gratitude that I am aware that you, Commissioner Liikanen, have devoted yourself to this issue with commitment and enthusiasm after Maj-Britt Theorin and myself updated you on it on 4 October.

Political group: PPE-DE