GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Minister, when all is said and done, it is a question of the meaning of words and of our really intending what is stated in Article 4 of the Regulation, namely that access to a document currently being dealt with will only be refused if such access would significantly undermine certain interests. The aim is, in fact, to achieve transparency, and we are striving to make this transparency as fully effective as possible. Ladies and gentlemen, this is about our believing in the words we write. I would call upon everyone who has contributed to the decision to ensure that the words are given their intended meaning. Otherwise, people will become even more mistrustful. We have achieved a compromise and made certain gains. I am extremely pleased that we have succeeded in introducing more good administrative procedures for the handling of documents than I had believed we would. It is also important that the exceptions are more limited than those proposed by the Commission. It is interesting to see what was dispensed with. What was also interesting was today’s statement from Commissioner Barnier to the effect that the infringement proceedings must be public, which means that we are entering a new era in the European Union. Citizens will be able to monitor the Commission’s activity in a completely new way. Many images have been used today. I agree with Mr Watson – without whom we should not have come so far – that we have obtained a powerful searchlight to use on documents, instead of the pocket torch we had previously. We have acquired a powerful tool. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party will use that tool in the way cited by my colleagues and, in this, we are counting upon the help of the ombudsman. There are shortcomings, but they are not as serious as our opponents maintain. We must respect the meaning of the words. We must also make sure that the Commission stops misusing the protection of personal data, something which has recently happened again. It is now a question of going further, beyond what emerges from the reports about what has happened. It is about freedom of expression for employees and about ensuring that future discussion of the EU deals with transparency in a broader perspective, for transparency must apply to all the institutions and involve more than making documents publicly available.

Political group: ELDR
The proposal to set up a European network of permanent, national football information points, in other words, to enhance cooperation between the Member States where the enforcement of law and order in international football matches is concerned, is a Belgian initiative which is based on the experience gathered at Euro 2000, the European national teams championship, which, as you know, was organised jointly by Belgium and the Netherlands in June 2000. The proposal and report are sound, and the initiative is excellent in my view. I should, however, like to make two observations. First of all, the proposal only applies, of course, to EU Member States. You may ask, what about the countries outside the European Union, many of whose clubs also take part in international competitions? Turkey, Romania and Croatia also play teams of the EU Member States. I hear you say that candidate countries will obviously need to adopt the acquis communautaire, and that is right. But that is not now nor in the immediate future. For some of them, that is not until 2004 at the earliest. And then, what about the others? What about the non-candidate countries? It may be possible to link up with the UEFA and with the national football unions, to find a way round this. Secondly, greater involvement and cooperation by the clubs and supporters’ associations is important to improve the climate and the quality. And I believe that specific efforts must be made in order to achieve this.

Political group: ELDR
The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have declined to vote for a motion for a resolution concerning further integration in the fields of freedom, security and justice. We believe in just and efficient European co-operation in connection with asylum and immigration. We are also believers in improved co-operation to prevent criminal activity in areas such as the trade in human beings, offences against children and money laundering. The motion for a resolution includes a desire to transfer police co-operation from the third to the First Pillar, a wish to give Europol operational powers and a plea to set up a common European prosecution service (Corpus Juris). We have voted against giving Europol operational powers because we don’t want it developing into a European answer to the FBI. We have also voted against establishing a common European prosecution service. We are not in favour of a common European criminal law or authority. Criminal activity can be combated just as effectively with the existing instruments, including Europol, and the conventions relating to extradition and to the assistance to be given by one State to another in the administration of justice. We have declined to vote for transferring political co-operation from the Third to the First Pillar. As long as the Danish reserve in the legal sphere still stands, we are in a special situation. We respect the fact that the other Member States wish to transfer co-operation to the First Pillar, but we cannot vote in favour of this as long as Denmark has a reserve in the legal sphere. For the reasons stated above, we have declined to vote for the whole motion for a resolution. Nor, moreover, can we support the desire that the Tampere Summit should be the starting signal for a new Intergovernmental Conference concerning further integration in the area of law. At the next Intergovernmental Conference, it is the institutional changes which need to be concentrated upon. Otherwise, we risk delaying the enlargement process.

Political group: PSE
Thank you for your reply, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, and for your statements as to what the Council and the Union intend to do about these terrible weapons. However, the problem which we are up against, Mr President-in-Office, is this: the United States wants out of the agreement because it is legally binding. You say that we shall keep trying to achieve something more specific in the future. My question is this: what talks are you holding with the United States, what can you do to make them change their mind and what information do you have on the matter? Because everything else depends on this. I do not question your good intentions, what I do question is the analysis of the situation which the President-in-Office's statement appears to contain.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, allow me to say to you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that we have confidence in Italy’s Presidency. We know that you will be able to combine political will and the spirit of conciliation in order to take European integration one stage further. In international affairs, transatlantic relations are obviously fundamental. The European Union’s discussions with the United States, along the lines of those held recently in Washington, must become more regular. Issues such as environmental protection that are the subjects of conflict between the two sides of the Atlantic, should be approached on a more pragmatic basis. We share the opinion of the Italian Presidency on the need for a short IGC, examining, if possible as it stands, the draft constitution of the European Convention and, above all, not re-opening the Pandora’s box of national requests. We are on the verge of adopting a common constitution drawn up in the full light of day. May we succeed in seizing this unique opportunity, and let us get ready for the new constitutional Treaty of Rome. Parallel to the enlargement of the EU, people need to feel safe within the borders of an EU alert to the external threats represented by illegal immigration, organised crime and terrorism. From now on, we need to show the determination required to achieve the desires of the Thessaloniki Council. At an economic level, the Italian Presidency’s plan to give new impetus to the trans-European network of road, rail and sea transport, as well as to the research and development project, is a necessity. As the French Prime Minister, Mr Raffarin, pointed out, the pact that links Europeans to one another is called the Stability and Growth Pact. We are therefore in favour of the European Union taking initiatives in the area of growth. As representative of the overseas regions, I would emphasise the importance, in terms of the EU’s social cohesion, of doing everything possible to open up the regions far from the centre of Europe. European solidarity depends on such efforts. We can only encourage the new Presidency, in the run-up to the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Naples on 2 and 3 December 2003, to develop its relations, particularly in the field of trade, agriculture, infrastructures and migration, in order to ensure that the Barcelona process does not run out of steam. Finally, we would keenly encourage any European or national policy designed to promote linguistic diversity. A Europe rich in 20 languages and as many cultures must not be reduced to a Europe of just one language. That requires effort on the part of everyone, however, and we await practical initiatives in this area from the new Presidency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the compromise proposed by Mr Ferber is an extremely wise one and is inspired by the golden rule that the best is the enemy of the good. This compromise, to which Mr Simpson and other Members also contributed seminal work, succeeds in taking into account the fact that, for the entire European field but particularly for the users who live in rural, peripheral, sparsely populated or disadvantaged urban regions, the postal services represent a fundamental link, a fundamental means of connection. Moreover, the fact cannot be ignored that the sector employs almost two million people. It is therefore right to proceed along the road to modernisation and efficiency, and there is no doubt that the liberalisation process which is already underway can also bring these results. We want liberalisation but not blind liberalisation. The process must continue according to the time frames and procedures which are appropriate to the complexity of the problems and do not affect the area of services of general interest, which are an essential cornerstone of social and territorial cohesion. Therefore, my advice to you, Commissioner, is, to quote a well-known Manzionian phrase, ‘Forward ... but carefully’.

Political group: PSE
This resolution comes at a crucial time for world peace, in view of the imminent attack on Iraq. The European Parliament feels the need to take a stand once again on this issue, expressing its full support for the militaristic policy of the EU, naming the ‘fight against terrorism’ as the main objective of the European security and defence policy and calling for full and fast implementation of the European terrorism law and other autocratic measures by the Member States. It fully espouses the American interpretation of the events of 11 September, endorsing statements on the global threat of terrorism and lending credence to propaganda about attacks on Iraq or anywhere else. More to the point, the resolution states that ΝΑΤΟ is instrumental to Euro-Atlantic stability and openly supports the new ΝΑΤΟ doctrine, orientated as it is towards the fight against ‘terrorism’. Of course, it does not fail to put the EU on a par with the USA in its role as global policeman, accusing the USA of unilateralism. Against this background, statements about respecting the rule of law, freedom and democracy ring extremely hollow. We consider the reference to the UN Charter to be both extremely dangerous and revealing, accompanied as it is by the view that 11 September was a case of armed attack. That is why the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the resolution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Like my comrades in the European Socialist Party, who have been particularly attentive and assiduous on the occasion of the hearings of the candidate Commissioners, I am pleased with this procedure which has offered us a wealth of information regarding the personalities and intentions of these people we are to liase with. This “final examination” of the future College of the executive body before the elected representatives of the citizens of Europe is an important phase in the democratisation of the European institutions which the Socialists have made their key issue. The low-key performances of some of the candidates, still apparently reticent whenever they have to mention social or employment conditions in Europe, and even the most unconvincing hearing with Mrs Palacio, do not cancel out an overall impression which is generally satisfactory. Unlike the European Right which manifestly sought to conceal its divisions by the very virulence of its attacks, occasionally personal and insulting attacks, on some Commissioners, I intend to promote the path of dialogue and collaboration with the future Commission. The main thing is, in my view, to find once more a credible partner, putting an end to this interminable state of transition, and enabling the European executive to resume its onerous duties and finally make progress, in close consultation with the Members of the European Parliament, on the crucial matters of concern to Europe and its citizens. In this spirit, I am voting in favour of the appointment of the new Commission, without thereby offering them a “blank cheque”. I mean to give myself the option of assessing the quality of the work done on a “piecework” basis.

Political group: PSE
I thank the Minister for his reply, which troubles me of course. I would like to ask him the following supplementary question: what is the fate of this draft resolution; in other words, has it been accepted in principle by the other 14 and which are the basic provisions contained in this proposal for a resolution?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the UN sanctions have become a weapon of mass destruction, claiming at least 200 children's lives every day. Dennis Halliday, who resigned from his position as director of the UN humanitarian mission in Iraq in protest at the sanctions, confirms the UNICEF statistics – five to six thousand children die every month as a direct result of the sanctions. Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has been speaking out against the sanctions imposed in violation of international law, which prohibits the starving of civilians as a method of warfare. She says: ‘How can you expect me to condemn human rights abuses in Algeria, China and elsewhere when the United Nations themselves are responsible for the situation in Iraq?’ The UN economic sanctions have denied Iraqis spare parts to restore infrastructure, making water and airborne infectious disease rampant. Furthermore, the shortage of medical and food aid has made deaths from these treatable diseases epidemic. The UN estimates that five to six thousand children die unnecessarily each month due to sanctions, even after the UN food for oil programme. The sanctions constitute relentless lethal force, and innocent Iraqi people caught between opposing forces are paying the price. It cannot continue. John Pilger's documentary two weeks ago on British television showed quite clearly what the situation is, and nobody with an ounce of humanitarian concern in them can ignore this plight and can persecute the innocent people who have no say over Saddam Hussein. This is ridiculous: a war is being waged against voiceless children basically because the United States, and indeed the British, are supporting this kind of inhumanity to their fellow man.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, what an honour! I have had the pleasure of Your Excellency also hearing my explanations of vote. In addition, I have discovered that, in today’s explanations of vote concerning Iraq, I will be heard by another great leader, who will be giving an oral explanation of vote. I therefore welcome Mr Marco Pannella, who will be speaking about Iraq. A great leader listening to Mr Fatuzzo: naturally, I am pleased about this. With regard to the Mulder report, I would like to explain what ‘liquidazione dei conti’ [clearance of accounts] means in Italian: ‘liquidazione’ means ‘dissipate, remove, liquidise; ‘conti’ is a title held by the nobility; therefore, ‘liquidare i conti’ means ‘to get rid of the aristocrats’. So might this be a report against the monarchy? While I was daydreaming about this over a coffee this morning, I spilt my drink on my trousers. Might this report – which, in reality, seeks to recover EUR 2.245 million defrauded from Europe – also just be a dream? - Report Korhola (A5-0004/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, there have been many speeches this afternoon about the financing of EU agricultural policy. In my opinion, the overall situation over recent years has been much more favourable for consumers than for farmers. I never tire of saying that the proportion of outgoings spent on food by the citizens of the European Union has fallen continuously over recent decades. There are hard figures indicating that those who, decades ago, spent 40% of income on food, now spend approximately 14%, so foodstuffs are not surplus junk and, with EU support, the farmers produce them and look after the countryside perhaps even far more cheaply than municipal farms could do it. My idea of the European agriculture model has remained unchanged for years. I would like farmers in the European Union to continue to perform the dual task of producing high quality products and caring for and maintaining the cultural landscape. In my opinion, therefore, we should really now be using the debate on common agricultural policy to ensure that this task can be performed in the long term in difficult locations not only in Germany but in all European regions. There has been much discussion today about your proposals, Commissioner, but, if I have understood you correctly, there are one or two places where you have allowed for a certain readiness to compromise, and this affects decoupling. The agriculturalists in my parliamentary party are demanding clear differentiation between arable and animal production. I therefore regard as eminently important the consistent continued development of common agricultural policy and also quantity-oriented market policy for milk. Commissioner, I am convinced that we should now decide – as you have always said. The parliamentary reports are available and I am very keen to know what the Council will make of them. We should really use this negotiation capital. Finally, I would therefore like to encourage you to follow our suggestions. If we all fight together it will produce the best results for agriculture and I am someone who would really like to defend you out there. (Applause) I cannot imagine what interest you could have in initiating something unsuitable. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the core of this debate on the role of the regions in the European structure is the necessary acknowledgement in the European constitution that the European Union does not only comprise states but has a more complex composition. Ten years ago, when the Maastricht Treaty was negotiated, there seemed, in my view, to be a more favourable climate for the regional package of requirements than there is today. There are even signs of a countermove in the European Convention now. The draft constitutional treaty put forward by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing causes me great concern in this regard. It does not contain any references at all to sub-state governments and is a step backwards in many respects. All this is happening against the background of enlargement. Many of the states that will soon be acceding are smaller than the existing regions and nations with legislative powers. The candidate Member States will soon be participating fully in the European structure. It is therefore only fair that nations such as Flanders, the Walloon provinces, the Basque country, Catalonia, Wales, Scotland and Galicia can do that too. The report by Mr Napolitano has arrived at an opportune moment, a few weeks before the debate on this in the Convention on 6 and 7 February. I fully support the strengthened version of the Napolitano report that Mr MacCormick mentioned. Commissioner Barnier and Mr Méndez de Vigo have just commented on the proposal to offer constitutional regions direct access to the Court of Justice. If I understand correctly, they are arguing for controlled access under the authority of the Member State in question. This little trick, however, is rather too transparent. It means in practice that, for example, the three historic nations of the Basque country, Catalonia and Galicia, would more or less be denied access to the Court of Justice by the centralist powers in Madrid. As a representative of Flanders, one of the historic regions that acquired quasi-autonomy without the use of force, I would like to ask you not to go down the route proposed by Mr Méndez de Vigo at all.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the situation is well known and the Commissioner has had the opportunity throughout this debate to obtain further details about the difficult situation in which we find ourselves, especially the fishing communities most affected by this problem. This is not only an economic problem. And if it were, that alone would have required the Commission to act more rapidly and to take the initiative in this matter. It is also the problem of the relationship between two countries in a part of the world that needs peace and tranquillity. And this is why this Agreement is of strategic importance, not only in relation to these fishing communities, but also in relation to the balance, to the peace that can only be achieved by means of various types of cooperation, this being a case in point. But now that we have reached this situation, we should work out why it is that we have done so. And the Commissioner is not new to the Commission; he is a Commissioner who has joined us from the previous Commission. He has joined us with exactly the same portfolio and the same dossier, and therefore, he has a very specific and genuine political responsibility which is his alone, not only to resolve this problem, but also to resolve all the problems that will remain until the agreement is renegotiated. I would like to tell you sincerely, Commissioner, that I was not very convinced by your speech a while ago. I sensed little enthusiasm, and it seemed to me that you have come here to give an administrative response to what is a worrying situation. This is a cause for concern not only to me, but certainly to my fellow Members in Parliament too. What fishermen need to know on this specific point is not that the Commission will be implementing initiatives and not that the Commission is prepared to help them. What the fisherman need to know, Commissioner, is what kind of initiatives are going to be implemented, and above all, what amount of Community subsidy is going to be provided to help these fishermen, and for how long the Commission is prepared to maintain it. Because, as Mr Miguélez said, what the fishermen need is not to be financed to remain inactive, but to be supported by the European Union so that they can carry out their professional duty, which means being able to work and thus contribute to the wealth of their country and to the wealth of the Community. Therefore, Commissioner, I am asking you for concrete responses. You know that you are already not very popular in Portugal because of the meat issue. We hope that your popularity does not continue to decline because of fish!

Political group: PSE