GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I think that the debate taking place here shows the unanimous welcome this Parliament accords to the progress in the peace process noted in the Sharm el­Sheikh Memorandum. It is a complex process – Commissioner Patten reminded us of this – and yet today, we have important deadlines and timescales during which things should happen which will bring us within sight of a definitive solution; that is, the recognition of two independent, sovereign states which can co-exist in a situation of mutual security. I think that we must now reconfirm our commitment and make an exceptional effort which will supplement that of the contracting parties which clearly nobody can replace. But I think that within this framework, the European Union can perhaps play a more political role to help resolve controversial points. We have been reminded of the negotiations between Israel, Lebanon and Syria on the Golan Heights and the items on the agenda which have not yet been dealt with. However, I think it is important that no unilateral action is taken on these items which will compromise the negotiated solutions and I think that the two societies must immediately work together – Israel in a move towards security and the Palestinians in a move towards peace and prosperity. I do not think there is anything that cannot be resolved. I would like to make a final remark on the extremely delicate question of Jerusalem and its status, which naturally requires that both the Palestinians and the Israelis find a solution. I want to say that there is nothing that cannot be resolved, and to back this up, I will give my city, Rome, as an example which shows that within the capital city itself, it is possible for two States to co-exist.

Political group: PSE
In considering this legislation, would you bear in mind that a certain flexibility is certainly desirable? For example, if you have a rigid nine hours or eight hours with rest periods thereafter, you may be within sight of the ultimate destination. In such cases, it is certainly better to allow an hour or two extra driving rather than a 12-hour rest period followed by a further one or two hours' driving. I appeal to you to consider a certain flexibility in the application of any legislation related to animal transport.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the experience of implementing the current WTO agreement for five years and the conflicts and disputes that it has created between countries shows that free and fair trade cannot be confined to straightforward issues of price ratios, subsidies and tariffs. For this reason, I would like to highlight four points for the forthcoming negotiations. Firstly, we must preserve the European farm model, which authorises precisely the plurality of functions that agriculture performs for society and which would be threatened if excessive liberalisation of the food processing industry were to take place. Secondly, we must establish a set of rules which are common to everyone with regard to areas currently not covered or insufficiently covered by the Marrakech Agreement, examples of which are health and hygiene standards, the effects on the environment and on health caused by certain methods of intensive production and the respect for consumers’ feelings. Thirdly, we must ensure that the designations of origin of the Community’s traditional products are respected so that we do not see more of the real piracy that is taking place with impunity with regard to Community brand names, as is happening in South Africa, as a matter of fact, with regard to Port, Sherry, Ouzo and Grappa. As far as this is concerned, I think that the decision taken on Monday 15 November by the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs constitutes a dangerous retreat and a dangerous act of hesitation in view of the negotiations that are about to take place. Fourthly, we need to ensure that all subsidies allocated to the agricultural policies’ different objectives are classified according to the same criteria. A scenario that must not be repeated, for example, is the classification of European export restrictions as yellow box, as a result of which, they have to be reduced in six years, whereas American export credits, which are exactly the same, are not subjected to any restrictions at all. To conclude, it is important to mention the fact that the Europeans have, for a while, been taking a more offensive stand in the negotiations on the WTO’s agricultural project. Firstly, because we have implemented two major reforms in the space of seven years – a huge effort – and secondly, because unlike the sacrifices European farmers have been forced to make, the United States of America has increased its subsidies by USD 15 billion in the last two years in blatant contradiction of the line of arrogant propaganda that they are currently taking against the CAP.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, the European Council has been able to differentiate between Arab and Muslim religion and society, on the one hand, and fanatical Islamic terrorist groups on the other. However, in its conclusions of 21 September, the European Council expresses the need, as you have said, to combat any nationalist tendency, as if to be nationalist were a crime in itself or an attack on human rights. Does the Council not agree that to stress the need to combat peaceful nationalism, which defends the universal right to free self-determination, something which the United Nations approved, by exclusively democratic means, could be seen as a display of intolerance and fascism on the part of the governments of the European Union? While it is true that there are radical nationalist groups, which support terrorism, there are also violent groups with unionist or environmentalist ideologies which also commit violent acts. Does the Council therefore believe that we should combat British unionism or environmentalism, for example, in all its forms? Would it not be better to show prudence and democratic respect whenever we refer to nationalism, unionism, environmentalism or any other ideology?

Political group: Verts-ALE
I cannot share the optimistic assessment given by the report on the World Food Summit in Rome. I see the results emerging from this conference of 182 states as being rather meagre and the prospect of effectively combating hunger as a worldwide problem, as a dismal one. Little progress has been made in the intervening six years towards the objective proclaimed at the previous summit in 1996, that of reducing the number of the world's starving from 800 million to 400 million by 2015. Whilst some states have succeeded in keeping hunger within bounds, new starvation zones have come into being in other regions, for example in the former Soviet Union. The main reason for the 1996 action plan's failure to reach its target is primarily that it was founded on a neoliberal policy which entrenches the structural causes of hunger and malnutrition rather than doing away with them. It is not globalisation and market liberalisation that are needed, but rather the radical dismantling of the trade barriers erected by the North to keep out products from the South, just as much as the promotion of food production for local markets by small farmers and producers' free access to input such as water, land, woods or fishing grounds. Trade can only be a key factor in security of food provision across the world if it is not seen as a one-way street down which the big food and feedingstuff corporations may travel as they will. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
I cannot support the European draft Constitution for several reasons. I object to the trend towards a European state and recommend continued intergovernmental cooperation. I cannot support proposals for increased military cooperation, which I consider to be a national issue. A new state requires a constitution, a common currency, a common court of justice and a common defence. To recommend, in addition, a common President, foreign minister and finance minister and remove the right of veto on important issues is to move further down the road towards creating a state. Such a fundamental change to the direction taken by the EU should be placed before the people of Europe in referendums. The members of the Convention, who have certainly done a sterling job, have not been elected democratically either, and the forms of decision-making within the Convention, in which no votes were taken, in themselves give rise to strong objections.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, considering this first discharge procedure for the new Commission somewhat dispassionately, we observe two explosive things: firstly, a gigantic Budget surplus, a massive underutilisation that actually shakes budgetary truth to its very foundations. One cannot but wonder for a moment why we spend months here on the Budget process if 14% of a Budget is not utilised. I know, as we all do, that the underutilisation in 2001 was even greater than it was in 2000. If, against that, we set the fact that the same year, 2000, also saw a doubling of the irregularities and frauds that were recorded in this Budget, then, in Budget matters, the first year of Mr Prodi's Commission seems not to have been much of a success. But, Mr McCartin, this does not mean assigning the debt to the Member States! Commissioner Schreyer has already referred to the desire to make use of the time for enlargement, in order to prepare these countries for it. So I ask the same Commission what is happening about the implementation of pre-accession aid in the context of agricultural policy, which was demonstrably not implemented at all in 2000 and 2001. The same Commission proposes to the European Union that enlargement should take place in 2004. How, then, is that to be done? Either the countries desirous of joining are – to put it in plain language – too stupid to collect money they have been given, or the Commission is not in a position to devise pre-accession programmes that are, at the end of the day, capable of being implemented! Today already, Commissioner, we can take it for granted, for example, that a programme such as IACS, that is, all the agricultural monitoring systems about which we have had so much to say, cannot be implemented for years on end if these countries are onboard, one of many reasons being that the Commission has overslept and missed the pre-accession programmes. I think it highly important, Commissioner, that we should, in the years to come, not spend all our time speculating about who should hand over which documents to whom – if any at all – and estimates differ as to how great this agreement between Parliament and the Commission is. What this is about is that you at last grasp that you are accountable to the European public for all of what you have utilised – or, in this instance, not utilised – right down to the last cent. Then, it is to be hoped, we will enter the new culture of political management in Brussels that Mr Prodi has, admittedly, promised us, but which has not, to date, been discernible. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the good news is that Europe has not run out of work. The bad news is that, more and more often, work goes undeclared. Failing to declare work is no mere peccadillo. The wide-boy in the local pub who brags about ripping off the State should no longer be indulged. In Germany, for example, work is being lost due to illegal employment and, for every ten thousand jobs, DM 240 million is lost in taxes and social security contributions. In her splendid and balanced report, Anne Glase estimates the volume of undeclared work in the EU at between 10 and 20 per cent of GNP. People who engage in undeclared work are to be found not only among the unemployed and among those who have entered the country illegally and have to suffer at the hands of those who profiteer from unemployment. They are also to be found among part-time workers who, in addition, are working at night and in the evenings on their computers, as well as among the self-employed who do additional work they do not declare. Those affected by this are small and medium-sized businesses which, unlike competitors who operate illegally, obey the law. Jobs cannot be safeguarded in this way. Nor can new ones be created. What is to be done? Firstly, abuse of the rules governing work must be punished, with fines for those who engage in undeclared work and for those who employ others to do such work. Those who hire workers who do not have work permits should be excluded from being awarded public contracts. Moreover, they should expect to receive custodial sentences. Secondly, thorough checks, including cross-border checks, by the relevant authorities are necessary. Town clerks’ offices must cooperate with factory inspectorates, and tax offices with immigration authorities, preferably in task forces. Thirdly, incentives to abuse the system must be reduced. Taxes and social charges payable by companies must be significantly reduced, as must VAT on labour-intensive services. Fourthly, it is particularly important that there should be more awareness-raising campaigns in order to convince all relevant target groups that undeclared work needs to be combated. It is extremely damaging both socially and economically. Acting illegally is anti-social.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is often said that Europe is not capable of producing a foreign policy, just as it is not capable of adopting a unified position on international affairs. I feel that if the countries of the European Union stick by their decision not to sign the resolution on human rights in China, that would only be confirmation of that inability. There is absolutely no reason, other than hypocrisy and defeatism, why we should not sign this resolution, for in not doing so we are not achieving anything at all that could justify taking this standpoint on a subject upon which there is such wide consensus from our public. Therefore, our resolution – which is not the first and, I believe and fear, will not be the last – seeks to make the Council change its mind, thereby ensuring that, at least at the level of condemnation from the civilised world, this time, China gets what it deserves.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is good that a new high-level group is being set up genuinely to tackle gender mainstreaming in the institutions of the EU. It is, unfortunately, not the first time that we are being given such promises and are taking that responsibility upon ourselves. It is what all the Member States, their governments and their politicians have done ever since the Beijing Conference of 1995. Unfortunately, it seems that we have, at best, taught ourselves a new expression. More often than not, everything continues, however, in the same old way. I am going to be a bit naughty here. We are to debate the privatisation of water. I should like to know how much account has been taken of women’s needs and women’s rights in the debate on the proposal to privatise water in the European Union. Of course, this will also be a signal beyond the borders of the EU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We Swedish Social Democrats believe that the EU’s agricultural aid ought to be considerably reduced and are therefore opposed to certain of the demands presented in Mr Korakas’s report. We welcome the Commission’s proposal to increase fines in the case of over-production, but do not back the demands by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to maintain the percentage of damages as it stands (Amendment No 12). We also oppose the demand to establish new Community financial aid to producers’ organisations, as tabled in Amendments 18 and 19.

Political group: PSE
I voted to approve the Accession Treaties only under protest and out of solidarity with my future colleagues. Despite the Commission's warnings and reproaches during the course of the negotiations, the Council has insisted on committing what is without doubt a breach of the law. The Council's controversial retention of Annex XV in the Accession Treaty and consequent wholly unilateral alteration of the 2004-2006 financial framework amounts to a breach of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the European Parliament and the Council. By doing this, it has trodden Parliament's budgetary rights underfoot. At the same time, it has forced upon Parliament the choice between fighting for its rights and approving the enlargement treaties. Such behaviour by the Council puts an end to our loyal cooperation with it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have come a long way, if I might put it like that, and we have moved a long way from the rapporteur’s original draft, which adopted a global approach, and which due to its lack of balance, failed to make any significant contribution to the cause of peace. In other words, the report that is now being proposed, which has been discussed, amended and is more moderate, puts my mind at ease and even satisfies me on many points. I thank the rapporteur for having added some water to his wine, if I might use that expression. Having said that, there are still at least three paragraphs that I cannot accept: paragraph 18, which calls both the Palestinian attacks and Israeli military repression terrorist acts and lumps them together, and I also wish to speak out against my communist fellow Member who has just called the United States a terrorist nation. I am also unhappy with paragraph 40 which, in a dishonest and shocking way, sets the Palestinian and Israeli education systems on a par with one another and lastly, paragraph 65, which once again, as I often have to say, raises the threat in this Parliament of suspending the agreement, a measure that would be counter-productive for the little chance of peace that exists. It is for the sake of balance that I will be voting against most of the amendments, not, for example, because I approve of the Israeli raid into Syria, but because I would have liked those who denounce it here and now to condemn the horrific attack in Haifa – which caused nineteen deaths – with the same virtuous indignation. Nothing has been said about this, however, or about the anti-Semitic words of the Malaysian Prime Minister, which are scandalous and unprecedented at this level. We are very far from having the balance that preceding speakers have advocated, Mr Poos in particular. I wish to say one final thing, Mr President, on the Swiss agreements which, of course, I welcome, as I welcome any initiative for peace. I do, however, have a closing question: why did we not applaud Taba to the same extent, where the proposals on the table were more or less the same, but on that occasion made by the elected Israeli Government? (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President it is a measure of the effectiveness and importance of this legislation that even in the midst of a comprehensive series of reforms of race relations legislation in my own country, we have a situation where further improvements can be made. I was going to make a speech of the normal variety, but having heard some of the responses across the House, I want to change what I was going to say, which is more in sorrow than in anger. This House should recognise and change its tone on what it sees as Article 13. Of all the speakers, Mrs Diamantopoulou made the very effective point that words can be cheap in the question of anti-racism. Posturing is easy. Motivations are many and varied. My friend, Mr Sylla, and I are concerned about two important things. One is that we create a level playing field through Article 13. The burden of proof, the ability for organisations to take cases on behalf of individuals who have been harassed or discriminated against – all of these laws do not create an advantage for the majority of society. They create the opportunity for people of talent and ability to release their talents and abilities to enrich what we have in Europe to create wealth, to create the culture and diversity of Europe, not to suffer disadvantage for small- and medium-sized enterprises or anyone else. We must start talking positively about these proposals mainly because the Commission and the Portuguese Presidency, many who have created this report, many of my colleagues who have worked hard on their opinions, have responded in the way that we have because we understand that this legislation is not about victims, it is about enriching EU countries. Many of those EU countries represented in this House do not pick and choose which race-relation legislation they have – they have none, many of them. We have some – we can improve ours. It is now an opportunity, a symbolic opportunity and an important practical opportunity for this House to make an historic judgement, to vote in full during a presidency which has helped us bring forward a law which I believe will enrich this House and that we, in time, will be very proud of. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that it was the who insisted that we looked at the whole question of the funding of political parties in this report. It was the and it was you, Mr Elles, who insisted on that. We are responding to that request. You insisted on it, we are responding.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement is the most crucial European issue as far as we are concerned. It is now also at the top of the agenda prior to the Swedish Presidency. We do not, however, want to see European cooperation cease or degenerate into bickering, which would be a risk if 30 countries could constantly use their vetoes. Development of the Union can only seriously be accorded priority through also, at the same time, welcoming qualified majority voting in the majority of areas but excluding, for example, the area of new treaties. We also want to see majority decision-making in regard to Article 289, because it would then be possible, where the European Parliament’s headquarters and meetings are concerned, to establish rules which would prevent the waste of human resources and tax revenue. Swedish taxpayers, who also pay net amounts into the European Union, are in fact at a loss to understand the madness of travelling backwards and forwards with thousands of cases every month. Perhaps it would be more efficient to have the offices in a pan-European caravan than to waste all these man-months, as we now do, upon plane journeys. We have every respect for symbols of peace, but the billions spent on gadding off to Strasbourg could, of course, be spent instead on our neighbours in the East, who perhaps have more use for these “peace billions” than we do. Finally, I want to thank the rapporteurs for a very good report and to express my hope that the Citizens’ Charter will usher in the new Treaty. I also want to end by expressing special thanks to Commissioner Barnier for being present throughout the debate and for his commitment to these issues. In fact, he gives me hope and inspiration on many occasions when I think that the Member States are being both negative and unreasonable on a whole range of issues with which, as European citizens, we really have problems. I would thank you, Commissioner Barnier, for your efforts which in fact help me to take an optimistic view of Europe’s future development.

Political group: PPE-DE