-- MySQL dump 10.13  Distrib 5.7.15, for Linux (x86_64)
--
-- Host: localhost    Database: velsen_europarl_final
-- ------------------------------------------------------
-- Server version	5.7.13-0ubuntu0.16.04.2

/*!40101 SET @OLD_CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT=@@CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT */;
/*!40101 SET @OLD_CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS=@@CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS */;
/*!40101 SET @OLD_COLLATION_CONNECTION=@@COLLATION_CONNECTION */;
/*!40101 SET NAMES utf8 */;
/*!40103 SET @OLD_TIME_ZONE=@@TIME_ZONE */;
/*!40103 SET TIME_ZONE='+00:00' */;
/*!40014 SET @OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS=@@UNIQUE_CHECKS, UNIQUE_CHECKS=0 */;
/*!40014 SET @OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@@FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS, FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=0 */;
/*!40101 SET @OLD_SQL_MODE=@@SQL_MODE, SQL_MODE='NO_AUTO_VALUE_ON_ZERO' */;
/*!40111 SET @OLD_SQL_NOTES=@@SQL_NOTES, SQL_NOTES=0 */;

--
-- Table structure for table `document`
--

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `document`;
/*!40101 SET @saved_cs_client     = @@character_set_client */;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = utf8 */;
CREATE TABLE `document` (
  `Id` varchar(45) NOT NULL,
  `path` varchar(100) DEFAULT NULL,
  `content` mediumtext,
  `Original` mediumtext,
  `timestamp` datetime DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
  PRIMARY KEY (`Id`),
  UNIQUE KEY `Id_UNIQUE` (`Id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
/*!40101 SET character_set_client = @saved_cs_client */;

--
-- Dumping data for table `document`
--

LOCK TABLES `document` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `document` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `document` VALUES ('10010.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10010.txt','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','Madam President, we are all still under the spell of the June elections in which a clear, absolute majority was achieved. But for the low turn-out (with people not voting, either because they were not interested in, or did not agree with, the development of the Union), the election was probably a milestone of democracy. Whether the conclusions of the Presidency and whether the results of the Tampere Summit will merit the term “milestone” remains to be seen. By the time of Amsterdam, we had had to acknowledge that the limits had been reached of how far the Member States were prepared to move towards integration. Following Amsterdam, there was extensive agreement that the Intergovernmental Conference was no longer a suitable instrument of change. This analysis was impressively confirmed by the embarrassingly low turn-out in the election. Otherwise, everything is continuing much as before. True, the Intergovernmental Conference is to get a face-lift, but the basic problems remain the same. There are doubtless some more positive entries on the balance sheet: the Tampere declarations concerning the area of freedom, security and justice; efforts towards a more intensive programme for combating crime; and improved access to justice. And also the results we are already seeing of the new policy on asylum and migration. Where, however, it was a matter of placing common interests before individual ones – for example, when it came to a fair sharing of the load – no agreement could be reached. Our conclusion, then, about Tampere: no doubt some important steps were taken there, but these were hardly milestones.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10011.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10011.txt','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','Mr President, at the weekend the OPEC ministers met in Vienna and came to the conclusion that there should be no increase in production quotas. Over the last 18 months we have seen the price of crude oil rise from USD 9.75 to USD 33 a barrel. As I see it, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we refuse to recognise that we are in the middle of the third oil crisis since the Second World War. The first oil crisis in 1973 was a political one, as was the second oil crisis in 1979, but this is a lasting crisis, because all the indications are that reserves are by no means as large as we have been led to believe. This is also what individual studies indicate. I could even quote Saudi Arabia\'s former oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, who recently said on Austrian television that the Oil Age is coming to an end, not perhaps because of a shortage of oil, no more than the Stone Age came to an end for lack of stones! And we cannot replace oil as a primary energy source by other primary energy sources, because they too would then soon be in short supply. Oil cannot be replaced by coal, natural gas or uranium. So this directive is unintentionally topical right now. However, it also provides us with an historical opportunity to give renewable energy sources, which constantly regenerate themselves – that is wind, hydro, solar and biomass – their proper place in future energy supply. This is for a variety of reasons – environmental reasons, social reasons, because they create jobs, for peace policy reasons, because this energy source has sparked off wars throughout the century, and, lastly, because they also represent a great economic opportunity for the industrialised nations.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100110.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100110.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are serious problems with seven of the transport projects decided upon by the Essen Council. Like the rapporteur, I am disturbed about this. One of these projects is the extension of the north-south link, and in particular the Brenner base-level tunnel. Through this project the European Union could demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service to the idea of shifting transit transport from road to rail. This is an opportunity to reduce the environmental burden on the region concerned and its population. Moreover, this project will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union as a whole. Unfortunately, however, there is still a very long way to go as regards its implementation. The subsidiary of the Austrian Brenner Railway Company and the Italian Railways, which is supposed to complete the project planning within a period of eighteen months, was only set up at the end of last year. This means that, more than five years after Essen, there are still no concrete plans on the table. The people of the region cannot understand that. For it is they who have to live with the ever-growing avalanche of traffic. The existing rules, under which a maximum of 10% of the total investment can be funded by the Union, are quite simply inadequate and unfair for projects that have enormous implications for the future of the European economy as a whole. Member States that will benefit from the completion of the Brenner base-level tunnel cannot shrug off their responsibility and leave it entirely to the countries directly concerned, like Germany, Austria and Italy, to shoulder the financial burden. In the end, that kind of attitude has nothing to do with solidarity.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001100.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001100.txt','The proposals for a second railway package set in motion important initiatives towards strengthening Europe\'s railway system. Opening rail freight services within Member States, and accelerating the process of opening up the international ones, represent a significant step towards deregulating the railway sector. The objectives set by the White Paper for European transport policy up to 2010, as well as the constantly increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads, mean that absolute priority must be accorded to transferring goods traffic from road to rail. Diverting the flow of European freight traffic can succeed in the long term only if railways are high-performing and competitive. The planned harmonisation of the European railway network is therefore to be welcomed, provided that a maximum of safety in rail travel can be guaranteed.','The proposals for a second railway package set in motion important initiatives towards strengthening Europe\'s railway system. Opening rail freight services within Member States, and accelerating the process of opening up the international ones, represent a significant step towards deregulating the railway sector. The objectives set by the White Paper for European transport policy up to 2010, as well as the constantly increasing volume of traffic on Europe\'s roads, mean that absolute priority must be accorded to transferring goods traffic from road to rail. Diverting the flow of European freight traffic can succeed in the long term only if railways are high-performing and competitive. The planned harmonisation of the European railway network is therefore to be welcomed, provided that a maximum of safety in rail travel can be guaranteed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001101.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001101.txt','Mr President, the very title of this item on our agenda indicates the importance of Article 133 in the debate on the extension of qualified majority voting. While its extension to trade in services is an understandable aim, it has little to do with the main issue of institutional reform, which needs to be resolved as a matter of priority the demand contained in point 7 of the joint resolution regarding the extension of external negotiating competence in the field of trade to cover investment has even less to do with this main issue. In view of the rather dim prospects of success, I do not think it would be a wise move to burden the Intergovernmental Conference with another complex and controversial topic. Given the current state of negotiations, it is doubtful whether even an extension of the conference to the Sunday, along with the customary extra hour that is gained when the clocks go back, would be sufficient to ensure that this question, along with all the others, will be properly resolved.','Mr President, the very title of this item on our agenda indicates the importance of Article 133 in the debate on the extension of qualified majority voting. While its extension to trade in services is an understandable aim, it has little to do with the main issue of institutional reform, which needs to be resolved as a matter of priority; the demand contained in point 7 of the joint resolution regarding the extension of external negotiating competence in the field of trade to cover investment has even less to do with this main issue. In view of the rather dim prospects of success, I do not think it would be a wise move to burden the Intergovernmental Conference with another complex and controversial topic. Given the current state of negotiations, it is doubtful whether even an extension of the conference to the Sunday, along with the customary extra hour that is gained when the clocks go back, would be sufficient to ensure that this question, along with all the others, will be properly resolved.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001102.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001102.txt','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','Organised crime in the European Union enjoys competitive advantages; in particular, the problems associated with mutual assistance in law enforcement and the procedural obstacles frustrate the process of criminal prosecution. The recently concluded agreement on mutual assistance in law enforcement constitutes a first step towards reducing the unfair edge certain countries have over others. In principle, we welcome the action plan put forward by the Council, but we also join the committee in criticising the Council over its consultation obligations. However, we reject a European-wide standardisation of criminal law provisions. Not only would an undertaking of this kind be almost impossible to achieve because of the way criminal law systems vary from Member State to Member State, our energies would also be better invested in preventive measures.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001103.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001103.txt','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.','Mr President, there can be no doubt that the EU-Russia Summit provides a great opportunity for a historic partnership. This partnership, which needs to cover both economic and political matters, is one of the key requirements for a peace and stability policy in the twenty-first century. Europe and Russia are a great deal more dependent on each other than might appear to be the case at first sight. Whenever there has been strife between Europe and its individual states on the one hand and Russia on the other, this has had a major impact on world politics. The present situation demands that we should create a starting point that prevents such conflicts arising in the long run. This requires us to establish mutual respect and a basis of trust. The Chechnya conflict is of course a major problem. Above all, we need to be wary about unilaterally condemning Russia without taking into account the overall background to this conflict, such as the role of financiers, arms suppliers and raw materials interests.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001104.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001104.txt','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.','Mr President, our public pensions systems are too expensive and have also ceased to be financeable. The gap between those actively employed and pensioners is becoming ever greater. Urgently needed reforms are constantly being postponed. The cost of these systems within the Union also varies very widely. For example, Austria devotes 15% of its GDP to pensions, making it the record holder, as the EU average is 11%. The high costs in countries like Austria are partly attributable to the fact that we have virtually introduced a separate insurance system for each professional group. This leads to all sorts of injustices that are no longer tenable. However, as others have already said, there is a crisis looming in pension provision not only in Austria but all over Europe. The public pension system can simply no longer be financed and is also becoming a burden on the younger generation. A pan-European market for occupational retirement provision is bound to help in this regard. However, in establishing this system, this second pillar, we should not impose an even greater burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. They could not tolerate a further increase in ancillary wage costs. The consequences would be disastrous and would, above all, have a negative impact on Europe\'s employment situation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001105.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001105.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Lisbon focused on employment, economic reform and the shift to the digital age. But Lisbon is not the first summit to discuss the topic of “employment”. Since Essen, we have had numerous declarations of intent and well-meant action programmes. The only way to achieve a sustainable increase in the employment rate is to give companies the entrepreneurial room for manoeuvre which they need in the form of framework conditions. The proposed measures to promote SMEs are confined to analyses and to drafting yet more non-binding declarations of intent. Paper is cheap. Unfortunately there is a total lack of concrete results. A sustained improvement in the employment situation can only be achieved through structural reform, which means reducing the tax burden, simplifying tax systems and making it easier to incorporate a company. We are all familiar with these requirements. Everyone says, “Yes, that is quite right”. But implementation is where it falls down. As an Austrian member, I must also address the sanctions of the 14 in connection with Lisbon. The ability to be democratic goes hand in hand with the ability to discuss. The efforts of the presidency to ban the subject of Austria from the agenda gave me even more food for thought. It is in the interests of the Union to clarify relations between Austria and the EU. Refusing all discussion was never a recipe for resolving a conflict. Many people back in Austria ask me “How can the peaceful house of Europe be built if the highest representatives are not on speaking terms or refuse all discussion?” These symbolic gestures are the right way to open up old wounds between people. I therefore say to everyone who declares that the sanctions are for the government but not the people, that such a separation is not possible. A democratically elected government cannot be separated from the people who elected it. This is illustrated by absurd examples such as the taxi boycott in Brussels, problems with school exchange programmes and much else besides. The distrust shown towards Austria, despite the fact that it has not once violated democratic principles since 1945 stands in clear contradiction to the spirit of this Community. Judge the Austrian government by its deeds. You will not find any violation of the spirit of the Union. (Applause from the right)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001106.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001106.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the crisis of confidence we have experienced this year, there has been a lot of talk about the need for a new beginning in relations between the Commission and Parliament. A new beginning of this kind is in fact necessary. Mistrust on the part of Parliament arose as soon as documents concerning cases of fraud landed on the desks of newspaper editors but not on those of the Committee. It was unacceptable for amendments proposed by this Chamber simply to be ignored by the Commission and for any officials who referred to mismanagement also still to be punished for this. All this, in fact, makes a new beginning necessary. However, I still have some reservations even after the long preparatory phase this new Commission has been through. I should like to quote three reasons for this. Firstly, political responsibility must also be accepted by each individual. Each Member of the Commission is responsible and answerable for his department. Not all candidates see it like this. Secondly, there are still doubts about the Commissioner-designate responsible for research. I expect you, Mr Prodi, to produce a further statement of your position regarding this matter. Thirdly, because the former Commissioners are again standing as candidates, there is still in the end the question of the terms in which they understand their political responsibility as part of a collegiate body. Europe’s citizens are entitled to expect transparency and proper supervision and a policy which accepts, undivided, that responsibility which has been transferred to it. We have our justified doubts as to whether this has in fact been guaranteed for the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001107.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001107.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond question: there is no doubt as to the historic necessity of enlargement. It is coming, that is a fact, and it is good that it is. But it will not be a tragedy if we fail to stick precisely to 2004 as the accession date. It is the quality of the process that is crucial, not the tempo. The project’s success must be assured. The report has many merits. But I wish it had shown more political courage and been open about the problems we face. I will mention two examples. Firstly, there are no definite plans in place for financing enlargement beyond 2006. I think the practical constraints method is a dubious strategy. The public needs to know what to expect. They have a right to know. This is not an intellectually specious argument, Commissioner. Secondly, at the heart of it, the dispute about the Beneš decrees is about the 1946 amnesty law. We cannot allow history to be misused as an obstacle to enlargement. But the amnesty law legitimises expulsion as an instrument of conflict resolution and expressly exempts crimes from punishment. That is contrary to the ethical foundations of the EU, the principles of the European community of values and the Copenhagen criteria. The Balkan conflict was about precisely the same thing: ethical and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who plays down this conflict of values does Europe a disservice. Right and wrong are indivisible and non-negotiable, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001108.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001108.txt','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.','The FPÖ members voted for the enlargement report on the Czech Republic. However, I wish to reiterate our position on paragraphs 42-44 of the report. The Melk Accord between Austria and the Czech Republic has failed to achieve the desired results so far. Its objectives have not been met. A satisfactory outcome can only be obtained if the Temelin issue is dealt with at European rather than at bilateral level. What is required, therefore, is a European initiative on the closure of Temelin which sets forth a timetable and financing options for its final phasing out and involves the Commission and the Member States.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001109.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001109.txt','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless unsatisfactory from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.','Madam President, President Chirac, I am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. I take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. While waiting for the outcome from Nice, I was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. Two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless \"unsatisfactory\" from him. Until late into Sunday, it looked like Nice too might earn such a mark. Then a compromise was found. In essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. Nonetheless, from an Austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. I personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the Court of Auditors to exercise control. As an Austrian I know what I am talking about. The rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. Many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. I take a more relaxed view. The heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. On the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. How can we make our citizens identify more closely with Europe if we do not heed their concerns? For many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. Many still have no sight of the port into which the European Union is supposed to sail one day. As far as I am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. However, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both I and Mr Poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. This sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause; it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the Union.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100111.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100111.txt','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.','Mr President, the European institutions must be aware that they have a responsibility and also an obligation to guarantee the European citizen an efficient and economical administration. Unfortunately though, the opposite still holds true, as borne out by cases such as Fléchard and the ECHO administration. The Commission is still denying Parliament access to information on these misdemeanours to this day, which on no account should we take lying down. Nor should we be surprised if European citizens continue to lose confidence in these administrative systems. Consequently, we Independents have no intention whatsoever of granting discharge to the report on the general budget. This ought to send out a clear signal that we are committed to creating efficient and economical administrative systems in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001110.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001110.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, but also at the stance adopted by the President of the European Parliament as regards this matter, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report and endorse the majority of her findings. Counterfeiting and product and brand piracy cause an enormous amount of damage. The figures produced by the Commission make for alarming reading. Nevertheless, one thing I would say in connection with the problem which has already been given voice to here today, and which is a serious one as I see it, is that, in future, existing, private information systems should be employed and linked up in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Once again, there is a danger that the European Parliament, in endeavouring to tackle abuses efficiently, will lose a sense of perspective and set up a Big Brother state.  Mr Rothley, whom I hold in very high regard, has often spoken in the past of Parliament suffering a rush of blood to the head over similar cases. What I mean to say is that it would not be helpful for excessive measures to be taken in this area either.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001111.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001111.txt','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','Mr President, Budget 2001 must not be to the detriment of agriculture. As such, I welcome the conclusion reached by the Committee on Budgets, pursuant to which there will be no introduction of compulsory personal insurance for the purpose of evening out fluctuations in the pig prices. However we must take action to ensure that the level of income, and thus the standard of living of those employed in the agricultural sector does not get any worse.  Our farmers are not just our food producers, they also conserve our landscape. If we close their businesses because their work no longer pays then our landscape will become increasingly desolate. This will impinge on us all. Therefore we must speak out against any attempt to make cuts in the budget that will harm agriculture. The principle of financing the poor at the expense of other poor people has no place in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001112.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001112.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','Mr President, Commissioner, there is no doubt that constructive cooperation between Russia and the CIS States, on the one hand, and Europe on the other, is one of the most important prerequisites for peace for the 21st century. Cooperation of this kind is presently threatened by the war in Chechnya and by other regional conflicts. I believe, however, that the war in Chechnya should not be seen either as a purely regional conflict or as a purely religious dispute. That would be to play down the situation and also to underestimate it. It is also quite clearly a question of geo-strategical manoeuvrings for access to the oil and gas reserves in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. Here, European, American, Chinese, Russian and other economic interests collide. A small spark in this area can lead to an explosion. And, as of today, a new crisis has evolved, namely in Armenia. A few hours ago, Prime Minister Sarkisjan and President of the Parliament Demirtschjan were murdered.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001113.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our central concern must be to establish equal opportunities between men and women. By equal opportunities I do not mean levelling down, I mean equal opportunities for equally qualified women to join and progress in the decision-making process and in professional life, for example by eliminating differences in salaries between men and women doing equivalent work. We know from the statistics that in nearly all countries at least half the electorate is made up of women, yet the number of women in decision-making positions in companies and in public bodies is remarkably low. I regard the prime political task as being to eliminate all barriers to equal opportunities. I have in mind framework conditions that allow women to take responsibility for shaping their own individual lifestyle. A policy that shifts this task to economic players lets policy makers off the hook at the expense of those affected. Because the issues involved are social protection, the value of family work, qualifications and skills, working conditions, working hours and much more besides. It is not a matter of quotas and positive discrimination. If you will forgive me, I consider that notion in itself to be absurd. How can discrimination be positive? I do not want to have my job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified for it, and I believe that many women feel the same way. ( Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001114.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001114.txt','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.','Mr President, I believe that cooperation between Russian and the European Union is one of the most important conditions for creating peace in the twenty-first century. This involves working towards cooperation from which both sides can benefit. Russia will always be one of Europe’s main providers of raw materials. That is why this is important for us, as we can only maintain our own prosperity by seeking such cooperation. And of course we also have to consider, no matter how masochistic this might perhaps sound, that in the long run we will also have to offer fair prices for raw materials. We cannot, of course, ignore Chechnya. It represents a vital issue and an enormous challenge. We should remember that it was precisely these Caucasian territories round the Caspian Sea that were the cause of conflicts a hundred years ago, because they were geographically strategic, just as they are today. After all, these events shaped the twentieth century as we know it. I believe that this area, research, provides a way of defusing one of the main causes of such conflicts – the battle for raw materials. So the research aspect here is also very important as regards renewable energy sources. My next point is that the non-nuclear component of these research projects must be given clear priority. We have seen what is happening on the nuclear side. We need to be aware whenever we are considering Russia that it represents one of the most important challenges for the next century in terms of strategic geography.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001115.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001115.txt','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','Madam President, the euro\'s strength at present is supposed to be an indication that the European economy is in quite a healthy state. We all know that this is actually not the case. In reality, things are not looking good for us. In recent decades, we have lived beyond our means. The fact is that our social, pensions and healthcare systems are no longer affordable. The result is that those who are willing and able to contribute find themselves burdened with levies and taxes which they can no longer afford. If we want to solve the problems, we must ease the burden on our contributors, which also means cutting taxes. Europe must distribute the burdens more fairly. As well as cutting taxes, we must also create employment conditions which once again enable businesses to create jobs so that working becomes a worthwhile option again. Work must become a worthwhile option in Europe once more. This is the only way to ensure that we can tackle our economic problems effectively in future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001116.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001116.txt','Mr President, I view the expiry of the Euratom Treaty as an opportunity for Europe to phase out nuclear energy. Yet today\'s vote on the Euratom programme has endorsed follow-up funding for nuclear research. This is set out in Amendment No 12, for example, which provides funding for research into the safety of existing reactors (with priority for reactors in the candidate countries), as well as reactors of the new generation. In other words, it safeguards future nuclear power plants. Yet research should be targeting non-nuclear energies, especially renewable energies, in order to make a contribution to the progressive phasing-out of nuclear energy in Europe. This is why we rejected not only Amendment No 12 but also the entire Euratom programme in today\'s vote.','Mr President, I view the expiry of the Euratom Treaty as an opportunity for Europe to phase out nuclear energy. Yet today\'s vote on the Euratom programme has endorsed follow-up funding for nuclear research. This is set out in Amendment No 12, for example, which provides funding for research into the safety of existing reactors (with priority for reactors in the candidate countries), as well as reactors of the new generation. In other words, it safeguards future nuclear power plants. Yet research should be targeting non-nuclear energies, especially renewable energies, in order to make a contribution to the progressive phasing-out of nuclear energy in Europe. This is why we rejected not only Amendment No 12 but also the entire Euratom programme in today\'s vote.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001117.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001117.txt','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','Mr President, my approval of the accession of all the applicant countries does not alter my continued rejection of the violation of human rights inherent in the Beneš decrees, which, I regret to say, are still politically significant in modern-day Czech society. Let us hope that Czech accession will result in the application of the rule of law to an unjust policy, thereby enabling the parties concerned, by which I mean not only the representatives of the Sudeten Germans but also the many Jewish victims who have been scandalously defrauded, to assert their rights on the basis of European law with a greater chance of success than hitherto. But for all the rationality of this case, let me emphasise that I, like so many others from my country, am speaking as a typical Austrian, with a mother who was born in Prague and a father from Vienna, and so the Czechs should recognise that this criticism comes from a friend rather than seeing every critic as an enemy. ( Applause )','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001118.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001118.txt','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','Mr President, the Skinner report is to be welcomed. Who dares wins! Unfortunately, there are far too many European companies to which this expression does not apply. We may be good in terms of inventiveness, but we are bad when it comes to successfully putting our inventions into commercial practice. All too often, rights of exploitation go to American or Asian companies before SMEs in Europe have the courage to exploit inventions themselves. Young entrepreneurs in particular often have no idea how to obtain equity capital. Our tax and administration systems create special problems. These systems are far too complicated and are often incomprehensible, so that companies of this kind face frustrating obstacles. We should therefore support all the calls for reform of tax systems and administrative structures. The present undesirable state of affairs needs to be changed as soon as possible, and the Austrian Government has already taken the initiative in this respect. Stamp duty on stock-exchange transactions has therefore been abolished with immediate effect and the tax allowance on employee share ownership has been doubled. It would be good if these measures could also be adopted by other governments instead of waiting until the EU requests them to do so.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001119.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001119.txt','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.','Madam President, I still remember well the pitying smiles of those delegates who favoured an ambitious agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference, when I suggested to them back in February this year that we could count ourselves lucky if it proved possible to find a solution to the famous Amsterdam leftovers. What stage are we at now, eight months on and with the Biarritz Summit behind us? Apart from hoping to make progress in the matter of extending qualified majority voting, in truth we have not made a great deal of headway. A new Treaty is just as distant a prospect today as it was eight months ago. Indeed it is clear that the question of the leftovers is going to be a fairly hard nut to crack. There is no prospect of any agreement to my mind. However, if no solution is found to the key issues, then it will not be possible for work which is at a more advanced stage – for example with regard to the reform of the European Court of Justice – to be included in a new Treaty. Similarly, the stock phrase used by the French, that it is better to have no treaty than a bad one, is unlikely to reinforce anyone’s faith in the attainability of an ambitious goal in Nice.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100112.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100112.txt','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','Mr President, I would first like to strike a critical note, because although the rapporteur explained the need for haste to the committee and I also understand that, I believe that there should not be fast-track procedures of this kind, because they can lead to botch-ups. However, I would like to specifically exclude the rapporteur\'s report from that comment. I am totally in agreement with the content of the report, because approximation of Community law as it applies to SMEs is also absolutely necessary if we are to increase legal certainty for cross-border contracts, especially in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It would be irresponsible to create free trade areas without making provision for the necessary instruments to keep commercial trade on track. However, it is my belief, and this is something that Mr MacCormick just touched upon, that the mature traditions underpinning the legal systems of the Member States impose certain limitations on the approximation of civil and commercial law, and that a failure to respect those traditions would inevitably lead to the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. However, I believe that these problems have been adequately addressed and that it is also possible to achieve this objective, which we will therefore be supporting.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001120.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001120.txt','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)','Mr President, in 2001, 55% of the European Union\'s blood products originated from donors who were remunerated for their effort. Of the plasma used to supply the EU market, 73% originates from people who receive remuneration for donating it. It is only through these donors that full supplies of plasma products can be kept up. Secure supplies of blood products save lives and must therefore be given absolute priority. The Common Position is a good basis for this. A ban on remunerated donation is not feasible in terms of health care provision. I can see nothing immoral in this – quite the opposite. I remember my own student days, when we students derived part of our income from donating plasma. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001121.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001121.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate about the EU budget will be tough. At a time when the net contributors do not have unlimited resources at their disposal and net recipients are keen to protect their vested interests, it will be difficult to achieve a constructive solution. As this solution, the Commission is proposing an increase in own resources. The idea of granting the EU its own tax competence – the keyword is the ‘Europe tax’ – is being discussed. Given the difficult economic situation and massive austerity measures being applied in numerous EU Member States, the letter from the six governments is quite understandable, in my view. If savings are being made across the board, then the EU cannot – no, esteemed colleagues – must not shy away from this desire for savings and reform. Anything else would damage the future of the EU and would ultimately be impossible to justify to the public. In the conflict over the EU’s future finances, there are two options: either to carry on muddling through, repeating the sins of the past and trying to fund everything at once, or – the second option – to see the future framework for the EU budget as an opportunity. Ever since the decision to admit ten new Member States, at the latest, it has been clear that reforms are essential. Yet so far, no one has been willing to grasp the nettle. Is everything just fine in the EU’s subsidy policy, for example? Is it clear why the EU subsidises tobacco cultivation while banning tobacco advertising at the same time? Is it really the clever option to fund the transportation of animals right across our continent and beyond? These are just two minor examples. However, one thing is clear: reforms must happen, and this is an opportunity. It takes political courage and probably also a political vision of Europe’s future shape, tasks and prospects. After all, a budget is merely a set of policies presented in numerical form.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001122.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001122.txt','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','We Independents welcome the action programme proposed by the Commission for fighting discrimination. But we vehemently reject the proposal submitted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to set up another special unit for the implementation of this programme. Discrimination cannot be tackled by creating additional administrative bodies; but solely by changing people’s attitudes. Communicating traditional values such as tolerance and respect for diversity can do far more to help achieve this goal than the most detailed annual report on the various forms of discrimination.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001123.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001123.txt','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.','Mr President, dividing the world into good and evil is not a very helpful definition when it comes to an active peace policy, especially if good and evil are defined in a one-sided way to suit particular interests. Every military conflict has a history. For example, we should not forget that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was supported and promoted by multinational oil interests, which is no secret. Back at that stage the dangers that could result from support of that kind should have been pointed out. The United States is now threatening to attack Iraq and possibly even other states such as Iran and North Korea; that is an incredibly dangerous game to play, and one that can easily get out of control. The European Union needs to play a stronger role than it has up to now as the guardian of international law, something that requires us to have a high degree of independence and the courage of our convictions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001124.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001124.txt','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.','Mr President, I would like, on my own account and also on behalf of my colleagues, to protest in the strongest terms, and have it put on record, about the article that Madam President had published in today’s edition of the Strasbourg daily newspaper. In it, she voices her belief that it would have come to riots in Austria had the 14 EU States not imposed sanctions against Austria. I utterly repudiate this. In making this comment, not only has the President done the Austrian people an injustice, she has also abused her office, and thereby caused this House, an EU institution, a great deal of harm.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001125.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001125.txt','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.','Mr President, previous speakers have already addressed many important items in the 2003 budget, but we have to take care not to focus on too few of its specific areas and end up trying to give everyone a slice of the cake. Those who suffered flood damage must now get aid very quickly and without red tape, and it goes without saying that provision must now also be made for the future. We must, though, take steps to deal with the constant increase in unemployment. SMEs continue to gasp under the excessive burden of taxes and levies placed upon them, whilst, at the same time, investment activity in Europe is declining, and the unemployment rate is, as already mentioned, constantly rising. The excessively high rate of unemployment among young people is a particular problem, and there is urgent need for special programmes to reduce it. I hope that Members of this House will support the motions we have tabled on this subject, which seek to promote apprenticeships in SMEs. Such action would strengthen SMEs and help those young people who, in Europe, have little or no chance of vocational training.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001126.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001126.txt','I rejected the report on the ‘Czech Republic’s application for membership of the European Union and the stage of negotiations reached’ because Parliament rejected the amendment submitted by the honourable member Matti Wuori. A disproportionately large number of breakdowns occurred during the preparations for putting the nuclear reactor Temelin into operation. In addition, environmental sustainability tests are not being carried out to an adequate extent, and the central parts of the reactor have not undergone crucial monitoring by international experts.','I rejected the report on the ‘Czech Republic’s application for membership of the European Union and the stage of negotiations reached’ because Parliament rejected the amendment submitted by the honourable member Matti Wuori. A disproportionately large number of breakdowns occurred during the preparations for putting the nuclear reactor Temelin into operation. In addition, environmental sustainability tests are not being carried out to an adequate extent, and the central parts of the reactor have not undergone crucial monitoring by international experts.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001127.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001127.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the resale right directive was to harmonise the common market. This aim has been achieved, but with rather dubious success. Quite apart from that, it is questionable whether there is really any need for harmonisation in this area. Particularly at a time when things are being streamlined and efforts are being made to achieve transparency, introducing another Community tax is counterproductive. It impedes trade; in fact it could even be said that it will bring it to a halt, because it is only a question of time before the art market shifts away from Europe in favour of the USA or Switzerland. In fact an imbalance will arise in the art market, with all the negative consequences that implies. Small galleries and the young artists they promote will be particularly affected by this new tax, however small. Even established artists, for whom this directive ought to bring some monetary advantage, have spoken out against it. It is a total mystery why this directive should be used to force something on the people affected that they do not want. By saying yes to this directive, Europe has had its day as a patron of art. That is why we in the Freedom Party have voted against it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001128.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001128.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on these interesting and important reports and to pledge our support, particularly as regards the demand that the European Parliament become more directly involved in the negotiations. Since the US administration has made it known several times that relations with South America will be one of the key points of their foreign policy, improved cooperation between the EU and the Latin American countries has become a necessity for the European Union, not only economically but also in terms of world politics. Hence, the recommendations specified here quite rightly not only contain conditions for improved economic cooperation but attempt to define the problem in terms of a global programme for the EU. Therefore, the recommendations listed in point 2, i.e. the encouragement of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law as well as respect for human rights and the reduction of inequalities between sectors of society and within regions, are just as important as the expansion of trade. The sphere of ‘political dialogue’ needs perhaps to be defined more accurately or, due to the heavily hierarchically structured society which still exists in South America, large sections of the populations will remain excluded from this dialogue. In short, the EU has good prospects with South America, perhaps in direct competition with the United States, though without repeating the mistakes made by the Americans who have justifiably in past decades repeatedly been accused in their relations with South American countries of too often purely defending the interests of power politics regardless of current democratic developments.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001129.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001129.txt','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.','Mr President, we have today well-documented accounts, attested by experts, of the Gulf War and of the events that led up to it, which show that this war was preceded, or accompanied, by a massive campaign of disinformation. The possibility cannot be excluded that various items of information on Iraq are still being disseminated for strategic reasons. This should not be imputed to the rapporteur, nor is it a justification of Saddam Hussein. We must not forget, though, that, until he invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a very good friend of the West. Today, the people of Iraq need peace, and sanctions, as a senior UN official reported only recently, are leading to a kind of genocide in that country. I dare say that the report in its present form will not help to alleviate the suffering of the people of Iraq. The amendments tabled by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sakellariou are very much to be supported.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100113.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100113.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Austria is seriously testing Mr Jarzembowski\'s endurance today, but I crave his indulgence. Ladies and gentlemen, crucial Austrian interests are at stake when we vote on the extension of the ecopoint system. The objective, as formulated in the Transit Agreement, of a long-term and sustainable reduction in pollutants has not, as yet, been achieved. In parts of the country from which I come, transit traffic has come to constitute an intolerable nuisance. The proposals in Mr Caveri\'s report reduce the ecopoint system to an empty shell. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 18, which has been tabled by a number of Austrian Members from all parties and builds on the Danish Presidency\'s compromise proposal. Even though I do not think this proposal goes far enough, it represents a middle way acceptable to all parties involved. Austria does not simply want to keep its ecopoint system well into the distant future. We, too, want a fair and, above all, sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems, but so long as one is not in sight, and pending the adoption of the new infrastructure cost directive, the transit issue requires a transitional arrangement that takes account of Austrian concerns.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001130.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001130.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','Mr President, Commissioner, the Cohesion Fund was created in order to prepare the structurally weak countries of the EU for economic and monetary union. The cohesion countries have substantially caught up over the past few years and they all participate in EMU. I would therefore observe that this objective of the Cohesion Fund has been attained. Despite this, Agenda 2000 decided that the Cohesion Fund should continue. Would it not have been consistent to let the Cohesion Fund expire, not abruptly perhaps but by its being phased out? The eastward enlargement means that the EU\'s present cohesion policy cannot be continued with any longer. We all know that eastward enlargement will not be for free, and this must be said frankly. Apart from that, I too believe that much is going wrong with our cohesion policy as regards efficiency, administrative costs and this policy\'s vulnerability to deception. What the cohesion policy needs is a fundamental debate about its strengths and weaknesses, that is, about its possible reform. I know that this is a difficult debate, being about our patrimony. But it is also about a quite fundamental question: what, in the EU, does solidarity mean?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001131.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001131.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the process of drafting European law should concentrate on fundamental issues rather than pointlessly wasting time and energy on details. This was written by Mr Prodi in a guest column in the \'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung \' on 27 July this year. I indeed hear this gospel, but I have no faith! The Miller report is evidence to the contrary, defining things that are self-explanatory. It tells us, for example, what a floor is, what is meant by \'behind\' and \'in front\' and informs us that provision must be made for passages through which two coaxial cylinders must be able to pass. The whole thing is actually absurd, but – and here I refer back to the quotation from Romano Prodi – Europe\'s citizens will rightly ask themselves whether we have nothing more important to occupy us. It was therefore with extreme annoyance that I took part in this brief vote on the Miller report. In many spheres, the imagination of regulators is positively inexhaustible. Yet there is a lack of real political will where really explosive legal issues are concerned. It will not be in that way that we will bring Europe and its citizens closer together.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001132.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001132.txt','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.','Mr President, when we have spoken in recent years on the use of nuclear power to produce electricity, we have always made reference to the hazardous eastern reactors which are of Russian design. Self-declared opponents of nuclear power have drawn the distinction between the relatively safe reactors of the West and these reactors. The Japanese have said, just as the Europeans are doing today, that their reactors are safe and that a chain reaction could not occur. The facts tell us otherwise. Today, after these two bad accidents, the one in Japan and the other South Korea, we have to recognise that drawing this distinction between high-risk nuclear reactors and supposedly non-risk nuclear reactors was a serious strategic error. All nuclear reactors have a risk attached to them, to say nothing of the fact that the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is not safe in any area. In view of the fact that such nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders, now would be an opportune time to explain to the accession candidates to the European Union that if they choose to continue with their risky nuclear policy – I am thinking here of Temelin, Krško, Bohunice and Mohovce – which are a threat to the entire European Union, then accession should not, and cannot, be granted under these circumstances.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001133.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001133.txt','Mr President, considerations of time have hitherto prevented me from congratulating the rapporteur, but today it is out of conviction that I refrain from doing so. Let me say at the outset that I support Mr Pirker\'s viewpoint, to which I refer in order to avoid repetition. The report raises a number of issues which, as I see it, have not been resolved. How will an equal distribution of applicants for asylum in the EU be achieved if standards vary because Member States are obliged to retain higher standards? How is unrestricted freedom of movement for third-country nationals while their application for asylum is in progress to be reconciled with the public\'s need for security and with concerns that the procedure should be speeded up? How do we explain to our citizens a regulation that ensures applicants for asylum access to the labour market as soon as possible, whilst they themselves may be unemployed? If the way the EU worked were as transparent as we would all like it to be, one would end up wondering how our citizens would vote in response to proposals of this sort.','Mr President, considerations of time have hitherto prevented me from congratulating the rapporteur, but today it is out of conviction that I refrain from doing so. Let me say at the outset that I support Mr Pirker\'s viewpoint, to which I refer in order to avoid repetition. The report raises a number of issues which, as I see it, have not been resolved. How will an equal distribution of applicants for asylum in the EU be achieved if standards vary because Member States are obliged to retain higher standards? How is unrestricted freedom of movement for third-country nationals while their application for asylum is in progress to be reconciled with the public\'s need for security and with concerns that the procedure should be speeded up? How do we explain to our citizens a regulation that ensures applicants for asylum access to the labour market as soon as possible, whilst they themselves may be unemployed? If the way the EU worked were as transparent as we would all like it to be, one would end up wondering how our citizens would vote in response to proposals of this sort.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001134.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001134.txt','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.','This report points out once again the grave deficiencies in the Structural and Cohesion Policy. I have for years been reading these reports with very great attention to detail, and always the same deficiencies are enumerated: unemployment continues to rise, and the cohesion policy interventions must be considered as having missed their targets. The present report highlights the fact that 24.2% of EU aid does not even reach the recipient regions, being diverted instead to richer ones. Faced with these facts, we cannot evade the question as to whether the policy we are applying is the right one. I also regard the candidate countries with concern. The Commission\'s progress reports show that action is urgently needed to develop their administrative capacities and coordination mechanisms. Mrs Schroedter\'s report must be a warning to us. The prospect of imminent enlargement means that a change of direction can be delayed no longer. It is precisely because I stand by the fundamental European ideal of solidarity that I demand a far-reaching reform of regional policy, one that will at last make this ideal into a lived reality. Mrs Schroedter\'s report contains good ways of going about this, and the Freedom Party delegation has therefore adopted it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001135.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001135.txt','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.','Mr President, the European economy is still doing well. But we must admit that we did in fact expect more. Less pleasing is the fact that the inflation rate has again crossed the 2% threshold and investments have fallen from 5.3% to 4.9% of Gross Domestic Product. We must therefore continue to ensure that priority European objectives – promoting small and medium-sized businesses, cutting red tape, reducing overly high tax rates – are implemented consistently. But we must also back and reform our education systems so that the lack of expertise threatening us does not in fact become a reality. Finally, the only economic development which can be described as a success is one which manages to reduce the excessively high unemployment rate in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001136.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001136.txt','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','Mr President, I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of my delegation and say right away that we intended to vote for Amendment No 26 and paragraph 27. We are, of course, anxious for crises to be solved by peaceful means and for peace to be maintained. After the terrible events over the last century none of us wants military conflicts. Nevertheless, the crisis in the Balkans has demonstrated the shortcomings of the European Union. We therefore support the creation of an effective common security and defence policy for the Union, with its own identity. We need to learn from our experience with the war in the Balkans, so that a disaster of this kind cannot be repeated. The Treaty of Amsterdam made the Petersberg tasks the responsibility of the Union. That leaves Article 5. We support the idea of incorporating this article as a protocol to the EU Treaty, but we would like to emphasise that the sovereignty of the Member States must be preserved when it comes to decisions regarding participation in military interventions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001137.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001137.txt','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','Mr President, the large number of monetary crises and the negative consequences they have for the global economy as a whole require joint action. There are many who believe that the introduction of a tax on global financial transactions could prevent future financial crises. Personally, I am glad that this opinion is not held by many in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I do not believe that introduction of the Tobin tax could prevent financial crises. Let capital make its way to where it is of the greatest use, in other words, let it be invested in new markets, developing countries and so on. By that means, growth can be produced. If we now make the transfer of capital expensive and limit and regulate it, the effect would only be counter-productive. Introducing it would also make sense only if it could be done internationally and without loopholes. This seems impossible, so that this tax will result only in additional burdens, bureaucracy and so forth, without the actual objective – the limitation of financial crises – being able to be achieved.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001138.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001138.txt','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.','Preparation for enlargement does not need to be as rapid as possible, but it does need to be done as well as possible. The report is defective in essential areas, and we have therefore voted against it, although it also contains proposals that correspond to our positions. Paragraph 50 does not address the Czech Amnesty Law of 1946, the repeal of which was determinedly demanded by Parliament in 1999 in relation to the Beneš decrees. The present text thus constitutes a retrograde step. It is, however, gratifying that the report gives dates for closure of the Ignalina, Bohunice and Kozloduy power stations. As regards Temelin, the report is disappointing when one considers that Parliament, as recently as last year, called for an international conference on phasing it out. Amendment No 45 deals with reform of the CAP, and does so in a way that the Freedom Party delegation has been advocating for many years. The amendment takes a positive line on the programme of support for border regions. All the reasons stated mean that we have been unable to vote in favour of the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001139.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001139.txt','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.','Mr President, of course it is depressing that so little has been achieved since the Earth Summit in Rio. This excellent report confirms that. I would like to highlight one aspect in particular. I think Johannesburg must start here. I think that in this House, we sometimes fail to recognise the opportunities afforded to us in this context by the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the co-decision procedure. We must wield this instrument with far more determination and vigour. Indeed, in my view, the greater our resolution in influencing the passage of European legislation on environmental matters, the greater our credibility will be in Johannesburg and, of course, at future conferences too. We must recognise that we need rather more self-confidence here and must sometimes endorse more stringent yet feasible demands. We must also reject any notion that nuclear power has a role to play in future.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100114.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100114.txt','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','Mr President, the Ninth Protocol to the Act on Austria\'s accession to the EU stipulated that, between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003, the pollutants produced by heavy goods vehicles in transit were to be reduced by 60% on a long-term and sustainable basis. That is primary legislation enacted by Austria and the EU. Today, we have not achieved the 60% target, nor has any reduction in pollutants been either long-term or sustainable, facts observed both by the Commission and by the European Environmental Agency in its 68th technical report. Instead, there has been a massive rise in the number of transit journeys, and the nuisance from pollution has increased by 52% in comparison to 1992. The ecopoint regulation will lapse at the end of 2003, even though its objective, the sustainable reduction of these pollutants, has not been achieved. As the transport infrastructure costs directive, often heralded by the Commission, has still not yet seen the light of day, a transitional solution was agreed on with Austria, having the form of a regulation on traffic from 2004 onwards. This agreement must guarantee that there will be no further increase in emissions from transit traffic over against the 2003 levels. Adoption of this report would have the opposite effect, that is, a dramatic increase in the levels of emissions from transit traffic. The first thing to be said about the report is that it is worse than the Commission proposal, worse than the Danish council decision, and worse than the decision taken at the Laeken Council. Secondly, the report entirely ignores the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which that body adopted by a large majority. Thirdly, it goes counter to the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Alpine Convention, as well as to the European Union\'s environmental goals in general. It is the primary task of the European Parliament to defend the interests of Europe\'s citizens. If we fail in this task, the hard-hit public will do as they have already announced their intention of doing, and use road blockades in an attempt to secure their rights. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001140.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001140.txt','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','Madam President, as Europeans we will only be able to act as mediators if we are not only neutral towards both sides but also show the necessary respect for the needs and expectations of all parties to the conflict. German Foreign Minister Fischer has perhaps shown us what European mediation could be like, by contrast to the embarrassing comparisons made by the Finnish Foreign Minister between the crimes of the national socialists and Israel and the aggressive attacks against Israel made by the Belgian Foreign Minister. I was also shocked to see shops in Brussels with signs saying “We do not stock Israeli products”. Perhaps some day European politicians will understand that no one is interested in their personal interpretations of the conflict. Our task is to help to calm the conflict, and this will only be possible if we recognise the Palestinian people’s need for independence and freedom, while also recognising Israel’s need for security and above all, too, recognising Israel as a democracy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001141.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001141.txt','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','The fact that fraud control must be taken seriously is beyond doubt because of recent events and also because the interests of the citizens concerned need better protection. With this in mind, OLAF should finally be able to commence its work. We are so concerned about the monitoring of the institutions by OLAF and so little can we identify with the “informing provisions” proposed in the inter-institutional agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and moreover attacking the independent mandate of the individual Members of Parliament. If it says in Article 2, that \"any official or servant of the European Parliament who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud,…shall…inform without delay…” then this compels them to inform. The planned form of monitoring by OLAF can only be a transitional solution and our agreement will only serve to set the necessary monitoring in motion. Our agreement does not mean that we approve of the methods criticised, for, as with any compromise, you have to make concessions here in order not to jeopardise the goal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001142.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001142.txt','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.','Mr President, we all stand for a higher level of employment, indeed for full employment. But how? There are considerable differences in how we answer the question as to how we want to achieve this objective. Many advocate, to the exclusion of all else, additional measures for employees, but that alone cannot reach the goal. We must indeed implement measures to benefit both employers and employees – or transpose such measures, as the case may be. This means, though, that we, together, have to be consistent in ensuring that there is a durable improvement in the economic conditions for our small and medium-sized businesses. Two-thirds of all European workers are employed in them. Their productive capacity must be improved, and that by means of easier access to additional finance on more favourable terms and a distinct reduction in the tax burden.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001143.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001143.txt','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','Mr President, we have to concede, and confess before every summit, that the sustainable development situation has got worse since the last one. We are running the risk of the public, who play a crucial part in all our environmental decisions and projects, slowly becoming resigned to it. The European Union\'s credibility in Johannesburg will be dependent on what we achieve here, on our ecological requirements and, not least, on the way we vote here throughout the year. The industrialised states, above all the fifteen EU states, can very definitely be considered rich in economic terms, and if they are not in the lead by miles, we cannot demand that the developing countries make sacrifices. I believe that what happens at the so-called environmental summits is not as decisive as what we bring to pass in our practical work between the summits and how we get it across to our citizens.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001144.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001144.txt','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.','Mr President, the increasing frequency of fraud offences within the Union and the Commission\'s behaviour are a scandal. The financial losses associated with adulterated butter alone could exceed EUR 45 million. What is more, it is evident that we are dealing with people who are repeating the same offence. On the Commission\'s recommendation, one firm, which is now again under suspicion, was let off a EUR 17.6 million fine. We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, give our full backing to the work of the European Anti-Fraud Office and ensure that it is properly set up as soon as possible. However, it is also important for the authorities in the Member States to support the work of this new body, but if you look at the reports in detail, you cannot always be sure this is happening. So sanctions should also be taken against those Member States which are not supporting OLAF\'s work, in the form of fines imposed by the Commission, which would also provide some financial compensation for fraud offences allowed to occur.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001145.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001145.txt','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','Mr President, these documents submitted by the Commission, the one on the levying of excise duty on biofuels, and the other on their promotion, tend to contradict each other somewhat. The intention in one directive is to introduce a tax on biofuels, which would take away their present competitiveness against fossil fuels. The aim in the other directive is to promote biofuels in order to build up their share in overall fuel consumption to a marked degree. The promotion of biofuels is without doubt an essential component of Europe\'s future energy supply, being sustainable and environmentally friendly. The amendments by the Environmental and Economic Affairs Committees, however, by raising the possibility of complete exemption from duties, make the two proposals compatible. One crucial point, that of their environmental impact, has been addressed in discussion of biofuels. The call has been made for the entire ecological lifecycle of biofuels to be evaluated. In principle, this is right; but, for the purposes of comparison, fossil fuels must also be included in such an assessment, and their complete lifecycle evaluated in order to achieve objective and comparable results. This should then also be dealt with in discussions with the Council, where we have proposed a compromise. Assessments of whether actions are ecological are probably much better reached when working towards obligatory or indicative targets. We will indeed reach a compromise, but one of the most important preconditions for it is the agreement of the Council.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001146.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001146.txt','On behalf of the Members belonging to the Austrian Freedom Party, I wish to explain our vote on the van Hulten report. The reason why we voted in favour of Amendment No 40 is that we advocate a new Bureau decision leaving no loopholes permitting additional mileage allowances and payments for extra time. We therefore advocate that the Bureau decision of 8 May 2003 should be revised to allow for the reimbursement of costs actually incurred. We voted against Amendment No 1, tabled by the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, believing as we do that it could be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate the retention of the 28 May 2003 decision on costs, with its hidden lump-sum allowances. In the final vote, though, we nevertheless voted against the report, as it fails to deal with such issues as the demand for a single venue for the European Parliament or the abolition of allowances for Fridays in Strasbourg. Having considered all the arguments, I wish to emphasise that the decision to reimburse only those travel expenses that are actually incurred met with our wholehearted support, although, at the same time, I regret the failure to take on board many of the amendments.','On behalf of the Members belonging to the Austrian Freedom Party, I wish to explain our vote on the van Hulten report. The reason why we voted in favour of Amendment No 40 is that we advocate a new Bureau decision leaving no loopholes permitting additional mileage allowances and payments for extra time. We therefore advocate that the Bureau decision of 8 May 2003 should be revised to allow for the reimbursement of costs actually incurred. We voted against Amendment No 1, tabled by the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, believing as we do that it could be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate the retention of the 28 May 2003 decision on costs, with its hidden lump-sum allowances. In the final vote, though, we nevertheless voted against the report, as it fails to deal with such issues as the demand for a single venue for the European Parliament or the abolition of allowances for Fridays in Strasbourg. Having considered all the arguments, I wish to emphasise that the decision to reimburse only those travel expenses that are actually incurred met with our wholehearted support, although, at the same time, I regret the failure to take on board many of the amendments.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001147.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001147.txt','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','Mr President, much has already been said by previous speakers. We distribute some of our funds indiscriminately, we set too few priorities, and we also finance ineffective actions, if you consider that we still allow ourselves the luxury of two parliamentary places of work and are therefore also paying for very questionable tourism for Members as well as a Convention that is costing millions. Europe needs new impetus. We need an offensive on the economy, including measures to make cheap capital – I mean venture capital – available above all to small and medium-sized enterprises. It is precisely here that effective initiatives are lacking in the 2003 Budget. There is an urgent need for action when it comes to introducing the Basle II provisions, above all when we consider that 45% of European small and medium-sized enterprises have little or no own resources. As well as changing the way in which aid is allocated in agriculture, in the future we will also have to change the distribution criteria in the Structural Funds. The standard of living in a region should not be used to assess the situation or be a factor in the amount of aid allocated. Companies or sectors that need support should all receive these funds, regardless of whether the company is located in the north, south or east. We must use the funds entrusted to us more efficiently and more carefully, if we also wish to co-finance enlargement.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001148.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001148.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to congratulate the Swedish Presidency and the rapporteur on their initiative. It seems to me that transparency quite rightly has a special place in the Nordic legal world, and transparency should also occupy a special place in the institutions of the European Union. I hope that we will go further than this expression of intent, this declaration, and that in future unlimited access to documents will be guaranteed. Democracy and the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens are always associated with the transparency of political decision making. It is not just the European public that has in the past complained – quite rightly in my view – about making policy behind closed doors. I too would have preferred a more far-reaching compromise. However, I think that for the time being we must be satisfied with what has been achieved. As the representative of the European public, Parliament has a duty to ensure that this regulation is strictly adhered to. In one or two years\' time we will be able to review whether this regulation has really been a success.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001149.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001149.txt','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.','Mr President, we are in more or less the same position with the debate on the use of genetically modified food as we were 25 years ago with the debate on nuclear power. Numerous studies confirm it is perfectly safe, but we have to assume that most of these studies were funded by the industries which stand to gain from genetic engineering. Recognised researchers in Scotland, on the other hand, for example Professor Pusztai, have found during experiments that genetically engineered potatoes, for example, cause serious damage to the animals\' health. Basically, letting consumers decide for themselves if they want to eat genetically modified food is a problem, because even highly educated people know very little about the possible side effects. Labelling requirements should therefore be applied on a highly restrictive basis and the threshold value should be kept as low as possible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100115.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100115.txt','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.','Mr President, in principle we must welcome the fact that the Mediterranean area is again being seen more as a partner of the European Union. I think the inclusion of Libya is crucial. Libya in particular has a great deal of catching up to do in telecommunications now that the embargo has been lifted. I visited Libya a month ago and found the people, especially the young, to be open-minded and most interested in Europe. It was clear from talks with the rector of the university and students that the long-term embargo has left many young people traumatised by a feeling of powerlessness and being distanced from the north. I think that now we must all do everything we can to prove to the people in all the Mediterranean countries that we recognise them as equal partners and offer them assistance, both in order to restore their trust in us as well as to solve their economic and social problems. This will certainly be in the interest of both sides.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001150.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001150.txt','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.','Once again, the European Parliament finds itself dealing with Eurodac, i.e. the system intended to prevent multiple asylum applications. It will always be essential for a system of this kind to be subject to democratic control. Accordingly, it is incomprehensible as to why the Council should want to alter the procedure in such a way that will deprive Parliament of all its information rights. That being the case, we support Mr Pirker’s report. However, I would point out that this courtesy does not extend to the committee’s proposal to raise the age limit.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001151.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001151.txt','Data protection is a typical example of one area where it makes real sense to create central control points. The existing juxtaposition of countless Community data protection regulations, which are called any number of different things to boot, is neither conducive to effective legal protection, nor does it make for a transparent legal situation. The continued existence of national control points is beyond doubt. Legal protection must be provided as close to the citizens as possible. Not only will the amalgamation of Community control points have a positive effect in terms of transparency and legal clarity, it will also help keep costs down. At long last, a constructive, truly expedient measure at Community level.','Data protection is a typical example of one area where it makes real sense to create central control points. The existing juxtaposition of countless Community data protection regulations, which are called any number of different things to boot, is neither conducive to effective legal protection, nor does it make for a transparent legal situation. The continued existence of national control points is beyond doubt. Legal protection must be provided as close to the citizens as possible. Not only will the amalgamation of Community control points have a positive effect in terms of transparency and legal clarity, it will also help keep costs down. At long last, a constructive, truly expedient measure at Community level.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001152.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001152.txt','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, the report provides me with the opportunity to comment in this House on the unjustified rebukes against us non-attached Members case by case. The assertion that we are adopting a restrictive position on asylum, of which the rapporteur was also accused today is simply wrong. Our position is quite clear. Although it is not necessary to mention it, I should nevertheless like to say to all those who agree with the criticism without knowing the position, that of course our policy is based on the Geneva Convention relating to Refugees. Of course we consider it absolutely necessary to provide temporary protection for displaced persons. Anyone who needs protection should be protected. What we do say, however, is that the unsuitable migration policy has led to social problems in conurbations, which we as serious politicians should not ignore. This criticism must be permitted in a democratic structure. Because we consider that a fair sharing of the burden is an important aspect of asylum policy, we are also in favour of introducing all relevant measures just as for the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We shall therefore vote in favour of the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001153.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001153.txt','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','Madam President, the EU is continuing to be taken for a ride by professional fraudsters, a situation which is, regrettably, a beneficiary of the excessively complex VAT system. It is through our tax regulations, which are in part difficult to understand, that we are laying ourselves open to fraudsters and indirectly promoting tax fraud. What we need in order to raise the level of taxpayer honesty and increase tax revenue is not only efficient monitoring and effective cooperation by the tax authorities, but also comprehensible and simpler legal texts as a fundamental precondition for this. The taxpayer very often refuses to pay taxes he regards as unfair. Incomprehensible tax laws and the tax burdens arising from them are, though, always or automatically seen by the taxpayer as unfair. We are therefore in urgent need of a reform of the VAT system, which is far too expensive and complex to the point of being incomprehensible even by experts. It is not acceptable for transactions to be tax-exempt within the business chain between the Member States but taxable at national level. It is advance deduction of tax within the business chain that facilitates this evasion of tax in the first place and that should therefore be abolished. By taking this step, we would be cutting the ground from under the fraudsters\' feet, simplifying the system and avoiding needless controls, with all their vexations, which are a further burden on our small and medium-sized enterprises. We should, therefore, be thinking, first of all, not only in terms of how we get the different authorities to work together better, but also about how we can simplify the system that makes fraud possible in the first place. That would be a step in the right direction, but we will, nonetheless, support Mrs Kauppi\'s report, as we share her view that it is self-evident that cooperation should be improved and that the effort must be made to make Europe less bureaucratic.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001154.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001154.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this objective, interesting report. The success of Nice is perhaps the fact that this paper exists and it is now up to those responsible to take things forward on the basis of it. The following areas are important for us: the division of competences between the EU and the Member States that could stand at the start of a constitutional process, the simplification of the Treaties to make them easier to communicate to the population and easier for those affected to understand, the inclusion of national parliaments in a future united Europe in order to involve the citizens and make them more enthusiastic for a united Europe, and of course the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If my colleague Mr Voggenhuber spoke so despairingly about the behaviour of electors in Italy and Austria, perhaps he needs to remember that the European democracy he is so keen on means above all else respect for the wishes of the electorate.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001155.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001155.txt','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.','Mr President, this Budget has again committed substantial sums of money to the planned enlargement. We must not, though, in doing this, forget the 23 frontier regions which will be particularly – even adversely – affected by the accession of these countries. Being a Member for one of these regions, Carinthia, I am disappointed. I am sorry that the Commission, the Council, and also the Committee on Budgets are not giving these regions adequate support by allocating sufficient budget resources. To cut resources for these regions is to play a dangerous game with popular feeling. If the population of these regions suffers overwhelming disadvantages, as is to be feared, the possibility cannot be excluded that they will vote against enlargement and thereby jeopardise the whole undertaking.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001156.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001156.txt','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','Mr President, the situation in Afghanistan is inseparably linked with that in the Middle East, and cannot be considered in isolation from the overheated expectation of war in Iraq. Those who are trying to establish peace in Afghanistan have to give credible proof of their primary interest in stability and the establishment of democratic structures rather than in the pacification of the region, all the better to exploit its crude oil resources or to build pipelines to siphon off Central Asia\'s reserves of oil and gas. Every departure from international law under the cloak of counter-terrorism inflicts grave damage on the legal heritage of the nations, thus imperilling 200 years of work on building a society that promotes civilisation. If the credibility of the international community in Afghanistan is to be maintained, the least that is required is independent examination of the accusations relating to the alleged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif and the publication of the results. In this connection, I would like to thank the Greek Presidency for having made Iraq, and the preparations for war there, core topics, and also to Mr Ionitsis, the Foreign Minister, for having spoken on Afghanistan in very clear and definite terms today.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001157.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001157.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as early as March 2000 the Lisbon Council advocated liberalisation of the gas and electricity sectors. The Commission tabled a comprehensive proposal to make this desire a reality. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy enriched this proposal by including other relevant points, stressing the need for greater emphasis on renewable sources of energy and the right of all suppliers to have unrestricted access to the network. The Committee also beefs up the role of the independent regulatory authorities and counters possible distortions of competition with provisions on ownership unbundling. I am in favour of these measures. I should particularly like to draw your attention to Amendment No 43 to the report. Here electricity providers are required to disclose to the final consumer the composition of the energy mix supplied in the bill and in advertising materials. This minimum information makes an essential contribution to creating transparency and provides a basis on which consumers can exercise their necessary freedom of choice in the completed internal market.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001158.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001158.txt','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','Mr President, the world at large is slowly getting tired of hearing reports on environmental summits with feeble outcomes. Rio still managed to be the bearer of great hopes, at least as regards theoretical approaches and fine words. The deeds that ensued were so disappointing that the environmental movement around the world has been virtually struck dumb. Kyoto was at least able to formulate an objective. The length of the periods of time leading up to implementation is such as to induce paralysis. Johannesburg was another disappointment in terms of what had been expected of it. Every failed summit does more harm than good, as it brings on a mood of resignation. Despite all this, I would like to mention the positive things about Johannesburg. For the first time, the European Union set out a practicable way ahead and a definite strategy in the form of the development of renewable energy sources. It is of course a matter for regret that the global one per cent increase was not adopted, but the EU now has the chance to live out and demonstrate, within its own borders, the way in which conversion to renewable energy sources makes everyone a winner, in that, by doing so, we will not only be mitigating climatic disaster, but will also be creating five times as many jobs as we would with traditional use of energy, preserving resources around the world, using renewable energy sources to develop technologies that we can export. Let us bear in mind that two billion people in the world have no electricity. It is now for us to work hard at demonstrating by our actions that we are actually achieving the objectives set by the White Paper for renewable energy sources. I would like to point out that we are rather behind in our aim to double their use by 2010.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001159.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001159.txt','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','Mr President, it is right and proper that we should keep on highlighting the significance of SMEs for the European economy. SMEs ensure growth and employment in Europe. It is therefore right, and indeed important in terms of Europe\'s development, that the EIB should step up its support for SMEs or carry on with it. Half of the total lent, about EUR 5.7 billion, was used for that purpose in 2000. This amount should be increased or its continued availability ensured. We must not stop the support measures. It is also important that more risk capital should be made available to these enterprises, and this is something which I personally strongly support. It goes without saying that the points of criticism made in the report must be taken seriously. It is not acceptable for the EIB\'s own home page to list its activities in only two or three languages. By so doing, the EIB is limiting its own significance.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100116.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100116.txt','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','Mr President, the European economic locomotive is not really picking up steam. Unemployment levels in Europe are too high, particularly as the more vulnerable members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed, are affected. In addition to launching a technical offensive in economic terms within the Union, for example, by setting up highways of information and focusing on research and development expenditure, it is of paramount importance to step up investment by approximately 10%, so as to secure growth and bring unemployment levels down. We must carry on heavily promoting the establishment and continued operation of small- and medium-sized enterprises, by improving access to foreign capital, dismantling bureaucratic hurdles, reducing the burden of taxation and also offering free business advice.  However, we must also reform our administrative systems. The Union should therefore adopt a directive on administrative simplification, requiring the Member States to only adopt logistical legislation that can be implemented swiftly and easily by the citizens, and which is simple and also comprehensible to them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001160.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001160.txt','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','Mr President, more autonomy in raising own resources will automatically mean – and I agree with the previous speaker here – a heavier burden for the European citizens. At the end of the day it will only lead to additional taxes being brought in and not to certain taxes being abolished. We believe that it will only be possible to reform the system of own resources with the agreement of the national parliaments, for we will also have to take their ideas into account. It goes without saying that we are in favour of systems being simpler and more transparent, and that ultimately we are also in favour of the burden on the citizens of Europe being eased rather than increased, so that we in Europe can achieve greater economic growth and in this way raise more taxes for the Union, that is to say for the national Member States. Before we advocate more autonomy though, we must exploit, that is to say fully explore, every available opportunity for making savings in the EU budget, and we must also explain to the citizens of the Union why we are permitting ourselves expenditure for two parliaments and are not coming up with simpler systems that would relieve the burden on the citizens of the Union rather than add to it. We will advocate simpler and more transparent systems, but we will not advocate putting even more pressure on the citizens of the Union in the form of additional taxation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001161.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001161.txt','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','Mr President, in principle, we welcome any attempt to improve conditions in Turkey and bring the country closer to the European Union. But the question is under what conditions and with what financial resources. A great deal has been said, quite rightly, about the human rights problems in Turkey, the Kurdish issue, and even recognition of the genocide against the Armenian people. I myself visited Turkey as a trial observer a few months ago at the invitation of a group of students, and it was not a very encouraging experience. It is interesting to note, for example, that the rapporteur himself, who has tabled a most interesting report, has changed his views on Turkey over recent years. But we should not reproach him for doing so, for everyone has the right to alter their opinion. Financial support for Turkey to boost those forces which want to move closer to Europe and achieve further improvements in democratic conditions must take place in tandem with observation of the human rights situation, however, and must not reduce the financial resources earmarked for other countries. So we are interested in the TDI\'s idea of setting up a kind of Council of the Wise, which would monitor human rights on an ongoing basis and make funding for specific projects conditional on improvements in this area.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001162.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001162.txt','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.','We in the Austrian Freedom Party have from the outset declared ourselves in favour of a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, for legal reasons we think that it is wrong to refer to it at this early stage in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, because it was not possible to reach formal agreement on it within the convention, reflecting its structure, and it therefore has no legal status. The demand that the Charter be incorporated into the Treaties is therefore all the more premature. This is also true because in contrast to the European Human Rights Convention, which was ratified by the Member States, the process of formulating political demands and objectives in this respect has not taken place in national parliaments. It is for these reasons alone that we have not voted for both parts of point 2 of the resolution.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001163.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001163.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','Mr President, it goes without saying that we welcome the Commission\'s initiative to help those who have sustained damage in the flood disaster speedily and without bureaucracy. We believe, though, that the aid measures put forward by the Commission at the present time will, unfortunately, prove to be inadequate to help the victims to a sufficient extent. Moreover, the funds are to some extent granted on the basis of unequal criteria. We are deeply affected by the extent of these disastrous floods. In Austrian regions alone, over 10 000 homes have been destroyed, innumerable bridges and roads have been destroyed or have sustained major damage, with the infrastructure of communities and regions suffering serious consequential damage. Hundreds of businesses were seriously affected by the floods, their plant and buildings badly damaged or wrecked. In Upper Austria alone, thousands of jobs have been affected or put at risk by the flood disaster. The overall extent of the damage is increasing on a virtually daily basis, as we get a better overview of the degree to which the regions have been adversely affected. It is currently assumed that the total damage will amount to over EUR 800 billion, which means, as has already been frequently said, that the sum of EUR 500 million proposed by the EU as emergency aid will not be sufficient. We are therefore working on the basis that at least EUR 1 billion will be allocated to emergency aid measures. In this context, we would also remind you that a surplus for the year 2000 totalling EUR 11.6 billion has just been repaid to the Member States. If billions are again repaid to the Member States in respect of 2002, it will not look good from where we stand, as the people affected by the floods will take it as read that the EU honours the concept of solidarity more in word than in deed. So I do believe that the Commission should indeed make up the cash and that this year\'s surplus should be cut back accordingly. It cannot be, or rather it should not be, the case that Europe\'s poor are treated unequally. I do not consider it right and proper for aid measures, in the final analysis, to be allocated according to the region for which they are destined. The situation in Upper Austria is that many businesses are not in the target region at all and certain aid measures are therefore denied to them. It goes without saying that we must also spare a thought for farmers, who should, speedily and unbureaucratically, have funds made available to them for the purchasing of feedingstuffs, be enabled to use set-aside land and should have cereals in intervention provided for them at cheap rates for feeding purposes. It is obvious that we have to think of the thousands of private citizens whose homes were destroyed, and we should also, in a spirit of solidarity, make funds available for them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001164.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001164.txt','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','Our society cannot at present do without measures aimed at promoting more equal opportunities for women. This is where the European institutions, the European Parliament in particular, can play a role as a pioneer in the world of work as a whole. Equal treatment for men and women is incorporated in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Here, gender mainstreaming is appropriate long-term for integrating gender issues into political and administrative decision-making processes and ensuring equal treatment in all policy areas and at every level. Speaking as a woman, though, I wish to be judged by my achievements rather than by my gender. The concept of ‘positive discrimination’ is an inherent contradiction, as discrimination cannot be a positive thing. We should therefore be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001165.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001165.txt','The reduction in the incidence of suspected fraud and irregularities in 2001, by 37% over against the preceding year, obscures the report\'s real message, which is a powerful one. The reality is that, in comparison to previous years, this is the second highest level that figures for suspected fraud have reached. These results, which emerge from the report, give cause for concern. Although there have been improvements in the combating of fraud, it seems utterly impossible to get misuse or the irregular use of EU funds under control. I repeat my long-standing criticism that the structures mean that abuses are inherent in the system. I appeal to the Member States to make greater efforts in this area in order to put an end to these abuses. Cooperation with other Member States, as well as closer checks at home, is absolutely vital, and not just in view of the imminent enlargement.','The reduction in the incidence of suspected fraud and irregularities in 2001, by 37% over against the preceding year, obscures the report\'s real message, which is a powerful one. The reality is that, in comparison to previous years, this is the second highest level that figures for suspected fraud have reached. These results, which emerge from the report, give cause for concern. Although there have been improvements in the combating of fraud, it seems utterly impossible to get misuse or the irregular use of EU funds under control. I repeat my long-standing criticism that the structures mean that abuses are inherent in the system. I appeal to the Member States to make greater efforts in this area in order to put an end to these abuses. Cooperation with other Member States, as well as closer checks at home, is absolutely vital, and not just in view of the imminent enlargement.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001166.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001166.txt','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.','Mr President, alarmed as I am at the prejudgement issued by 14 Member States, I maintain that the planned agreement can only signify a first step in the right direction. The fact that we have laboured for years on this issue shows how difficult it is to see our work germinate community-wide, which is what we need so badly. There is no doubt that we only be able to combat organised crime in a constructive and efficient manner if we take action at Community level.  The criminal has a natural headstart and this must be curtailed. In this respect, the Di Pietro report has special significance, and I fully agree with Mr Schulz there, which is most unusual. However I must also concur with the rapporteur when he states that this Council text does not make the grade in terms of offering a solution. It is not homogeneous and nor is it systematic enough. However, I believe that it could be substantially improved with the aid of amendments and I feel that in this case a little is more than nothing at all.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001167.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001167.txt','Mr President, the information on the vote on request for urgent procedure on administrative cooperation was not supplied to me in due time, or rather, it was not delivered at all, and, for that reason, I am unable to vote in favour of it.','Mr President, the information on the vote on request for urgent procedure on administrative cooperation was not supplied to me in due time, or rather, it was not delivered at all, and, for that reason, I am unable to vote in favour of it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001168.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001168.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','Mr President, it is clear that the banks have been toying with this issue for years and have, at long last, thrown away this opportunity, making it necessary to introduce binding rules in a regulation. It is not on for EUR 18 of bank charges to be debited for transfers of, say, EUR 100, and often this is done twice, once from the sender\'s account and once from the recipient\'s. It is not on quite simply because the financial institutions have, for some considerable time, had the technical means to carry out transfers, honour cheques and make card payments quickly and at a reasonable cost. We must be careful to ensure, however, and this has already been mentioned several times – that, as cross-border charges go down, domestic charges are not increased correspondingly. Should this be the case then, in the future, domestic charges will also have to be laid down in a regulation. We should clarify this too. One snag is the fact that there are moves to postpone the deadline by two months. On this point, I am afraid that I cannot go along with the rapporteur. The banks have always been able to raise interest rates and bank charges overnight. In the space of a month and a half it will now also be possible for them to lower their charges to a standard level. I hope that there is not a majority in favour of the amendments concerned.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001169.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001169.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 95% of live animal transports are by road and we are all familiar with the images of tormented animals confined in a very narrow space for days on end as they are transported across Europe and beyond. There can be no doubt that something needs to be done. I support the proposals made in this report that will help to improve standards in live animal transports, such as setting minimum standards for the vehicles used, but above all the introduction of additional supervisory measures, because however good the rules may be, they will not work if there are no controls. There are already plenty of rules, but enforcement and controls are lacking. Amendment No 2, of which I am a co-signatory, is designed to clarify the term ‘journey’ in order to prevent the maximum duration of transport being exceeded by the back door, so to speak. Transport times must be reduced in any case. The vote has been brought forward to today. Amendment No 81 states, and I quote: ‘sequences of travel times may be repeated during a journey’, which means there can be repeated journeys and the time limits can be avoided. As a block vote has been applied for, it is no longer possible to vote against Amendment No 81 on its own. I consider that unacceptable. The best thing would be for animals to be transported as little as possible. That is probably pie in the sky. We must be clear that sales-based support for live animal exports is an incentive and that we are therefore deceiving ourselves if we want to cut animal transports to a minimum so long as such support continues.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 95% of live animal transports are by road and we are all familiar with the images of tormented animals confined in a very narrow space for days on end as they are transported across Europe and beyond. There can be no doubt that something needs to be done. I support the proposals made in this report that will help to improve standards in live animal transports, such as setting minimum standards for the vehicles used, but above all the introduction of additional supervisory measures, because however good the rules may be, they will not work if there are no controls. There are already plenty of rules, but enforcement and controls are lacking. Amendment No 2, of which I am a co-signatory, is designed to clarify the term ‘journey’ in order to prevent the maximum duration of transport being exceeded by the back door, so to speak. Transport times must be reduced in any case. The vote has been brought forward to today. Amendment No 81 states, and I quote: ‘sequences of travel times may be repeated during a journey’, which means there can be repeated journeys and the time limits can be avoided. As a block vote has been applied for, it is no longer possible to vote against Amendment No 81 on its own. I consider that unacceptable. The best thing would be for animals to be transported as little as possible. That is probably pie in the sky. We must be clear that sales-based support for live animal exports is an incentive and that we are therefore deceiving ourselves if we want to cut animal transports to a minimum so long as such support continues.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100117.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100117.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are, by voting on the report on the Sixth Framework Programme, laying the foundation for projects to be supported to the tune of a total EUR 17.5 billion, which is a considerable amount of money. What was made clear, as early as first reading, by the incredible number of amendments, is just to what an extent views differ in this House on what form the Framework Programme should take. Diametrically opposed positions are appearing now at second reading when it comes to the definition of basic ethical principles. Opinions differ to too great a degree for there to be ready compromise, in the Community of Fifteen, on the boundaries of stem cell research. We will certainly be concerning ourselves more in future with questions of bioethics. I have my own difficulties with the use of embryos for research. Most of all, I cannot approve of European research funds being used to promote something which, in many of the fifteen Member States, is illegal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001170.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the wording adopted in Lisbon was courageous, ambitious and high-flown – the EU was to become the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world by 2010. These good intentions were very welcome, but the outcome of the Barcelona Summit was less so. The long overdue complete opening of energy markets was not forthcoming. Instead we got a lazy compromise. A properly functioning internal market is the key to growth and employment. The ‘ Neue Züricher Zeitung ’ neatly summed up the outcome of the Barcelona Summit in one sentence: ‘Europe caught between ambition and action’. I agree with Mr Solana\'s critique of this kind of conference diplomacy. Mountains of paper are generated, private and not so private discussions are held, and all in all a great many good intentions are announced, as is the desire to play a major economic and increasingly political role on the world stage in the general interest. The delay in the liberalisation of energy markets is an example of how far removed Europe is from being able to act. Especially in a core area like the internal market, I regard this as being extremely damaging in terms of economic policy, and, as Mr Evans put it, ridiculous politically speaking.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001171.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001171.txt','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.','Mr President, whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States, I have this to say about the report currently under discussion. I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible, as this has led to the rapporteur being unable, in the final analysis, to identify with the outcome, causing her to withdraw her name. A rather singular occurrence. As I see it, constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur – which she has expounded and justified again today, and which I am therefore in a position to refer to – as well as by other members of the committee, were simply swept aside and not handled properly, for reasons of political ideology. In assessing this improper conduct, I would refer – on behalf of Austria, among others – to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000, whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form, unanimously and in fact right across the political divide. I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way, because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good, particularly in an area as sensitive as this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001172.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001172.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on women’s roles is an ideological one. There are those who say that women are meant to go out to work in order to fulfil themselves, whilst others believe that they have been allotted the traditional role of wife and mother. I see this as resorting to clichés. The fact is that poverty has a female face. Although there are many modern career women for whom emancipation has become the norm, and who are often described as freeloaders, it is also the case that the dual burden of family and career is mainly borne by women. I believe that this ideological slant has not got us any further. The chief end of any individual’s life – the highest goal that he or she can have – is to determine the course of their life freely and in their own way. As I see it, free self-determination involves being able to decide for oneself and to choose between the options of job, job and family or homemaking. Such choices demand framework conditions, and it is the task of policy to provide the best ones it can. A certain amount has been done, but it is far from enough. Childcare facilities with flexible opening times need to be set up; parental time out has to be capable of being shared. Right across Europe, there are interesting models, such as the use of vouchers in payment for services, which the French have pioneered and which also creates jobs, or, to take another example, the introduction of child allowances in my own country of Austria, the thinking behind which is to try to make freedom of choice a reality for women.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001173.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001173.txt','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','Mr President, having been alarmed at how the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, it gives me satisfaction to acknowledge the Haarder report, which gives Austria full marks, even in comparison with the other Member States, when it comes to human rights, something which is self-evident, in my view, for this country at the heart of Europe. In so doing, he has confirmed my contention that this action by the 14 lacks any justifiable basis, Mr Schulz. The report also criticises the fact that Austria has not yet ratified the 1998 European Charter for Minority Languages. I should therefore like to point out that the ratification of the Charter for Minority Languages referred to is indeed an element of the government’s programme. The coalition has undertaken to table this before the Nationalrat (National Assembly) by January 2001, and the highly criticised government is continuing to burnish Austria’s already excellent image in the field of human rights. (Applause from the right)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001174.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001174.txt','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.','Madam President, as a Member from the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party), I was elected just as democratically as any other Member of this House. Dr Haider was elected with 42% of the vote in Carinthia in a free, democratic election. If Members of this House, who are trying to build a united Europe, believe that in this Europe, some voters are respectable and some are not and that, therefore, some Members are respectable and some are not, then they should study the history of Europe this century. We cannot exclude people from here, because by so doing we exclude those who elected them in democratic elections. All of us have the right to sit here because we were democratically elected.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001175.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001175.txt','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I may happen to be wearing my Nice hat today, yet I cannot get away from the fact that in Nice, as before in Amsterdam, we once again found that as an instrument the Intergovernmental Conference is finished. On the other hand, I do not believe the much-praised Convention is fully developed yet as a procedure. It could, however, serve as the blueprint for a workable procedure. So in regard to the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Union, a question addressed both by the President of the Council and by the President of the Commission, let me outline my idea of an effective procedure. During a first stage, parallel to the discussion begun under the Swedish Presidency, at the invitation of the European Council and in fact as early as possible there should be a discussion and opinion-forming process at the level of the national parliaments, which would then, just like the European Parliament, have to submit a proposal by, say, Spring 2002 on this distribution of powers. Only on that basis should a Convention be convened, with the participation of constitutional experts, experts in European law, representatives of the national parliaments, of the European Parliament, of the national governments, but also of the governments of the candidate states and, of course, of the Court of Justice and of civil society. They would be charged with drafting a proposal for a inventory, and to do so by around Spring 2003. On the basis of that proposal, the Commission in turn would be instructed by the European Council, in stage 3, to submit a proposal to it on the distribution of powers which could conceivably happen by the end of 2003. In stage 4, I am envisaging rather more stages than the Commission President before the Intergovernmental Conference is convened, this proposal would have to be submitted for fresh discussion at national level, which would have to conclude by mid-2004. Then, in stage 5, the Intergovernmental Conference would be convened, which should be brief and efficient. In that way, we will ensure that we have a procedure that effectively includes the national parliaments, which has not been possible so far with the Convention, and that an agreed proposal is submitted to the Heads of Government. Instead of the institutions acting side by side, as they have done in the past, they would therefore be acting together.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001176.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001176.txt','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.','Mr President, I wish to make an oral statement on the vote on the directive on working time in the road transport sector. My delegation welcomes the adoption of the directive. The improvement of road safety in general and greater protection for crew are both matters for concern across the whole of Europe and must therefore be regulated on an EU-wide basis. The latest events in connection with the hauliers\' scandal in Luxembourg and in my homeland, Austria, have shown that there is much wrong in the transport sector. The plenary\'s adoption in January of the proposed regulation introducing an attestation for drivers was a proper indication of the desire to get the better of the illegal employment of third-country nationals. The directive that the plenary has adopted today represents another important step. The requirement to adhere to rest breaks and the laying down of maximum and night work times are making their contribution to safety on Europe\'s roads. It is for that reason that we voted for the adoption of the directive. It is, however, regrettable and disturbing that self-employed lorry drivers have not, for the time being, been included in the scope of the directive. That is a problem. It will probably give rise to new forms of pseudo self-employment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001177.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001177.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have all supported the reports on the employment situation, we believe that the unemployment rate is extremely high and that we have failed to find any really effective answers at either national or European level. There are many different reasons for this. One important reason in my view is that in comparison with Americans, Europeans are risk-averse, and there is also a lack of positive motivation in the public at large, which is needed if good economic growth is to be transformed into a positive employment policy at both European and national level. This is also partly a reflection of the fact that, in Austria for instance, we have a very low proportion of entrepreneurs. In Austria this proportion is about 8%, the second lowest level internationally. For example, surveys carried out amongst school leavers and students about to start work have indicated that 60% of our young people want to become civil servants instead of embarking on an active career. A simple analogy would be an employment team   in which out of 22 players, 13 want to be referees and only 9 want to kick the ball, with only two or three players wanting to be strikers, who are, in the end, the key to success. That is why we need a better climate. We need simpler laws and above all we should not make the mistake – and that applies to this House also – of over-regulation by means of European standards, regulations and directives, which the public see as an obstacle, and which ultimately encourage them to stop taking risks or setting up on their own, avoiding any really active business, and instead, just working in a secure area, which will ultimately lead, as far as economic recovery is concerned, to ... (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001178.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001178.txt','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.','Mr President, at second reading I voted against both the reduction in the payment period from 30 to 21 days, and against the proposed interest level of 8%. I am still convinced that an interest rate at the 6% level originally proposed by the Council would suit business better. I cannot say that I am entirely in agreement with the compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee, but in view of the importance of this directive for cross-border trade and the operation of the single market, I finally voted for the version now before us.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001179.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the establishment of our own food authority is an essential signal to consumers, whose confidence in food products has been badly shaken in recent times. Not only the Commission but every Member State too must have the legal power to appeal directly to the new authority. That is logical. The European Food Authority must operate independently of the Commission, so that it can intervene as quickly as possible in any crisis. We have great expectations of this authority, and we want it to be staffed by independent experts who can offer the politicians a scientific basis that will enable them to make the right decisions and fully restore consumer confidence.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100118.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100118.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this interesting report. Collaboration at the academic and cultural level in Europe does of course need to be improved, but educational differences in certain areas, which produce different results, form part of Member States\' national traditions. This only becomes dangerous if education fails to reach a certain standard. In the past, for example, this often led to the situation in which graduates in medicine from one Member States were not, because of educational standards, permitted to work in others. Crossing borders when changing from one university to another also becomes impossible if the same minimum standard is not guaranteed. The announcement of academic and cultural cooperation with candidate states is, however, particularly to be welcomed. We who live on the border with Eastern Europe know these countries very well. Many here will be astonished to learn that, in the twin areas of culture and education, we might even have a few things to learn from the Eastern European candidate states.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001180.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001180.txt','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.','As long as nuclear power stations are operated in Europe, the highest priority should be given to protecting the health of EU citizens and their environment. We have, by adopting Mr Schwaiger\'s report, made an essential contribution to nuclear safety being able to be researched in even greater depth in the future. I have in mind especially the safety of existing reactors in Europe and in the candidate countries. Even before enlargement, there is a need for Europe-wide safety standards to be created for nuclear power stations, so that we can provide the citizens of an enlarged EU with a high degree of safety in this area. I see it as a task for the Joint Research Centre to lay the foundations for common safety standards of this kind. It is for this reason that the delegation of the Austrian Freedom Party has voted in favour of this report and of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 in particular.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001181.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001181.txt','Madam President, I must take this opportunity to inform you that a party of schoolchildren invited by me for this week – tomorrow to be precise – has cancelled the visit. I also heard, however, that mine was not the only group affected, but that around half the invited groups had cancelled their visits this week. The children in question, or their parents, fear that security measures in this House are inadequate and that the children would be in danger if they visited Parliament. Let me request you, then, to supply the public with extensive information about the adequacy of the security arrangements. Should this not be possible, consideration should be given to a general suspension of visits. I myself have also another concern: I would welcome it if those visitors\' quotas that cannot be made use of because visits have been cancelled, could be set aside for future dates rather than be lost, so that these groups that, for understandable reasons, are not visiting Parliament now, may make up for it at a later date.','Madam President, I must take this opportunity to inform you that a party of schoolchildren invited by me for this week – tomorrow to be precise – has cancelled the visit. I also heard, however, that mine was not the only group affected, but that around half the invited groups had cancelled their visits this week. The children in question, or their parents, fear that security measures in this House are inadequate and that the children would be in danger if they visited Parliament. Let me request you, then, to supply the public with extensive information about the adequacy of the security arrangements. Should this not be possible, consideration should be given to a general suspension of visits. I myself have also another concern: I would welcome it if those visitors\' quotas that cannot be made use of because visits have been cancelled, could be set aside for future dates rather than be lost, so that these groups that, for understandable reasons, are not visiting Parliament now, may make up for it at a later date.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001182.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001182.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out how important it is that the Regulation is implemented in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention. A uniform Regulation on liability in air transport creates transparency. It protects the interests not only of passengers but also of carriers which can maintain the generally recognised standards in international air transport. The competitiveness of European air carriers must not be impaired through liability rules which are not covered by the Montreal Convention. In order to create a uniform Regulation in conformity with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, I call on the Member States to ratify this Convention as soon as possible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001183.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001183.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the coordination and pooling of European research efforts must not lead to the demise of competition between research establishments. Coordination and cooperative arrangements are good, but there should be no anti-competitive assimilation. Subsidiarity defines the limits of the Community’s powers, and those limits must always be borne in mind. Whether the Commission’s ambitious projects are realised will depend on the breadth of vision demonstrated by national decision makers, who must rid themselves of the notion that the awarding of research contracts is a means of subsidising their own national economies. The foremost priority must be to achieve each research aim as quickly as possible for the benefit of the entire European Economic Area. We in the Union probably have the best training courses for scientists, but sadly they often emigrate to more attractive countries like the United States after obtaining their qualifications. Every effort must be made to keep them in Europe, which is why it is up to us to create the best possible conditions for research activity and thus to make Europe a more appealing option for top researchers.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001184.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001184.txt','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.','Mr President, as Europeans, we have a special, historic responsibility in connection with the peace process in the Near East. This responsibility cannot however involve our judging the current political strategy or the Palestinians and expressing our opinions on democratically elected politicians in Israel. As Europeans, we must remain neutral in this conflict and support both sides equally in their efforts. We are therefore, like the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance rejecting motions for resolutions which express views which are increasingly critical of the Israeli Government but which do not go into the problems of the other side. As Europeans we cannot afford to take sides in this conflict, thus losing our credibility as negotiators.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001185.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001185.txt','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.','Mr President, life is indeed not always easy. As a new Member of Parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I discovered relatively quickly that the organisational arrangements and support offered to new Members are distinctly lacking. In order to be able to vote “yes” or “no” in the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would have to familiarise myself with several years’ worth of Budgets of the European Union in a few days, and this without the support of this Chamber. I could not do this, of course. I am basically an optimist and believe that it is very feasible to familiarise oneself with this subject matter, although I am conscious of the interventions of several Members, the gist of which is that in the Committee matters are handled like in a cattle market, where funds are passed back and forth, and that documents are, to some extent, prepared worse than in a good many municipal councils. I would propose, however, that, in future, new members are quickly provided with the necessary information and training which will allow them to carry out their duties in the respective Committee and participate in voting. The citizens of Europe expect this of us, even those taking up office as new Members and, at the end of the day, will thank us if you take up and transpose this initiative of mine.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001186.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001186.txt','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.','Mr President, whether the presidency’s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved – and it is an ambitious aim – is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. In any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. I am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of Europe play an important role in this programme. Allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. Firstly, I think that we cannot simply ignore the Irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the European Idea. Secondly, I am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the European Parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people’s vote. The result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. I particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. I should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the Belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the Austrian people have become rather hard of hearing.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001187.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am well aware of the historic significance of today\'s vote, which is also, though, the most difficult decision I have had to take in my political career to date. I did not make this decision easy for myself. I brought myself, after mature consideration, to vote in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, something I did despite my rigorous position on the Beneš issue. The Immunity Act remains part of Czech law. It is an unjust law and a stain of dishonour. There is no place for it – none whatsoever – in a new Europe that takes seriously its affirmation of common values. It is with great regret that I note that the Czech Government has not, to date, been magnanimous enough to make a gesture. Despite that, I have voted in favour of the Czech Republic\'s accession, thus demonstrating a trust that may, for all I know, be misplaced. I would, though, like to help break the vicious circle of misunderstanding and help break down entrenched positions, and I trust that this positive signal will also meet with a positive response from the Czechs. Those who reject an outstretched hand have not understood the spirit of the enlarged Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001188.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001188.txt','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','Mr President, whilst I too wish to express my dismay at the ongoing prejudice displayed towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which refers to a number of very important areas. The diversity of cultural traditions in Europe is not just a colourful mosaic of artistic activities but gives expression to cultural, religious and also national diversity, to a sense of belonging and a feeling of attachment to one’s native land.  Very often in the past, Parliament regarded culture as nothing more than a breeding ground for art. However, it is much more than this, and cannot be separated from a minority’s sense of identity and its self-perception, therefore neither can it be separated from the rights of these groups, which are to be respected. Most minority groups in Europe define themselves through their cultural traditions, and it will only be possible to afford them the protection they need if we make it possible for them to integrate into mainstream society, whilst respecting their own traditions. If we are to acknowledge and comprehend these traditions, we will have to do more than register the differences purely as ethnic characteristics or as a list of discriminations.  We hear so much these days about the dangers of disregarding the rights of minorities, and very often this takes the form of cultural discrimination. The debate about the human rights of minorities, xenophobia, and racism, particularly in the light of the enlargement process, is doomed to failure unless we re-define and extend our concept of culture. Otherwise we will end up endlessly repeating hollow words that do not mean anything to most people these days.  The Convention should take account of these thoughts in its drafting of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. In defining and reworking the concept of a minority’s culture, a new dimension will be added to this very important basis for identity, and cultural issues within the EU will not be treated as a mere colourful adjunct to our other very important responsibilities.  (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001189.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001189.txt','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','We Liberals have always stood up for efficient control and the fight against fraud, precisely in connection with irregularities in the EU budget. This is also the reason for our fundamental agreement with the Theato report. Nevertheless, we are highly aware of the problem of legal competence. In this context, the Member States are called upon to check, during discussions of the reform of the Treaties, if there is any sense or purpose in creating EU offences. It should be emphasised that the current legal situation does not, in our view, allow this. The role of a “European public prosecutor”, albeit under any other name, implies serious intervention of a sovereign nature and therefore needs fundamental discussion. The very fact that only a few Member States have ratified the convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Union again illustrates the limits on the potential for integration. However, we expressly emphasise that there can be no question of communitisation and that harmonisation of offences should be limited to the proposed areas. In all events, the creation of uniform European criminal law is not in keeping with our objectives.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100119.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100119.txt','Mr President, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which really addresses the problem, and to thank him for it. Austria has always played an important part when it comes to receiving refugees and displaced persons, and has also contributed more than its fair share to solving the resultant problems. I would particularly like to thank Mr Nassauer for adding to what the rapporteur has said in this respect. However, it is high time a satisfactory pan-European solution was found to this problem. It is not enough just to call for solidarity between all the Member States. As regards reception of persons by the Member States, the Commission proposal only talks about Community solidarity, but this concept needs to be firmed up in the spirit of Article 63(2)(b) of the Treaty. The purpose of the directive as described in Article 1 should also include the idea that displaced persons should be allocated to the Member States with due regard for their absorptive capacity. However, the solidarity mechanism operating between the Member States should also cover both aspects, that is to say both the financial and personal aspects of solidarity.','Mr President, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which really addresses the problem, and to thank him for it. Austria has always played an important part when it comes to receiving refugees and displaced persons, and has also contributed more than its fair share to solving the resultant problems. I would particularly like to thank Mr Nassauer for adding to what the rapporteur has said in this respect. However, it is high time a satisfactory pan-European solution was found to this problem. It is not enough just to call for solidarity between all the Member States. As regards reception of persons by the Member States, the Commission proposal only talks about Community solidarity, but this concept needs to be firmed up in the spirit of Article 63(2)(b) of the Treaty. The purpose of the directive as described in Article 1 should also include the idea that displaced persons should be allocated to the Member States with due regard for their absorptive capacity. However, the solidarity mechanism operating between the Member States should also cover both aspects, that is to say both the financial and personal aspects of solidarity.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001190.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001190.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, first let me thank you for the optimism which you expressed in your speech – it makes a welcome change from the last presidency. That aside, I should like to use my brief speaking time to make a proposal. The proposal discussed by various political groups to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament to represent the national parliaments could be dispensed with if we followed the Austrian example here. Under our federal constitution, the Austrian representative to the Council is directly responsible to the national parliament and the main committee of the Austrian National Council can influence the position taken by the Council representative. This ensures that the representatives of the Austrian people control and help shape political negotiation in the Council, without the need for a second chamber. Involving national parliaments at the very earliest stage makes a second parliamentary level unnecessary and would be a simpler and perhaps cheaper and less bureaucratic solution.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001191.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001191.txt','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.','Mr President, it goes without saying that I can support the guidelines in general terms, but I would wish to observe that it is, in my view, to be welcomed that the EU is preparing well for the planned enlargement. We must not, though, overlook the fact that the costs of this should not mushroom, as explosive growth in cost would jeopardise Europe\'s stability and that of the euro. This would happen, for example, if enlargement were to increase the burden on the Member States\' budgets still further. Support should also, of course, be given to agricultural reforms redirecting resources from the market promotion to rural development. A particular concern of mine continues to be the reinforcement of small and medium-sized businesses, and so I hope that Amendment No 5, which deals with this, will be adopted by a large majority, so as to prevent the implementation of Basle II having adverse effects on SMEs.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001192.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001192.txt','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.','Mr President, an overwhelming majority of the European public is opposed to a war in Iraq, and there is at present no occasion for such a war, other than the desire to seize Iraq\'s oil reserves. A preventive war is nothing other than a deliberate and unilateral attack, something for which there is no justification in the absence of a UN mandate. There are many who would be the losers in such a war. The USA and Great Britain may perhaps be able to win the battles, but there is much more at stake. One loser would be the civilised world, which is seeing a demonstration of how easy it is to displace and suspend international law, which was fought for over centuries, for the sake of a preventive war of aggression.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001193.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001193.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic growth of the Union is evidently threatening to grind to a halt. Lip service is paid time and again to the principle of supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the fact is that we give them far too little support, even though they are the engine of our economy and the guarantors of European jobs. If we really want to help them, we must do all we can to ensure that changes are made to the economic conditions in which they operate. This means that our administrative systems and regulations must be modernised and simplified. Deep cuts must be made in non-wage labour costs, which are vastly excessive. These measures must be consolidated by means of an extension of the Maastricht criteria on budget deficits and debt levels to include a cap on administrative expenditure. No Member State’s administrative expenditure may on any account exceed 8% of its GDP. If this savings potential were realised, the absolutely crucial process of tax reform could be financed, and the engine of our economy, the small and medium-sized businesses, could be primed up to remain in perpetual motion.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001194.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the extension of the ecopoint system is not just about special treatment for Austria, it is not about continuing to make life difficult for Europe’s hauliers, and nor is it about making a mockery of the free movement of goods. Austria has no desire to set these rules in stone for the rest of recorded time. What Europe needs is a sustainable solution to its transport problems. For years, none has been found; the transit issue is a ten-year saga of omissions by one side and then by the other. To this day, the transport infrastructure costs directive is not officially speaking on the table, and, to this day, the objective set out in the Transit Agreement, of a lasting and sustainable reduction in pollution, has not been fulfilled. It is for this reason that Austria needs transitional arrangements to be enshrined in a treaty. What the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism mean, as does the free run for HGVs in European category 3 that it is looking to implement, is that Austria is going, in the fullest sense of the word, to be overrun. There are parts of my country in which pollution as a result of transit traffic has reached levels that people and their environment cannot be expected to endure. In the event of the committee’s proposals coming to fruition, Austria’s citizens will, quite literally, be driven on to the streets. I therefore ask you to support Amendment No 19, which has been tabled by a number of Members of this House from different political groups, as it prevents the worst from coming to pass and will represent a workable compromise in negotiations with the Council. Here and now, I appeal to the Council not to delay the conciliation procedure. Europe needs a directive on transport infrastructure costs; European policy needs instruments for a sustainable transport policy; Austria, in the meantime, needs a transitional arrangement. The majority in this House may well turn a deaf ear to these concerns, but their doing so will mean that Europe will be doing the people of Austria a disservice.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001195.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001195.txt','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','Mr President. If Basel II were to be implemented as it has been drafted by the Basel Committee, then it would be easier for businesses that do not need money – that is, loans – to have access to credit. Vice versa, businesses that do need loans – that is, money – would find access to them drastically more difficult. In Austria, for example, some 65% of businesses are financed by bank loans. The EU average is only 46%. For the most part these businesses have little equity capital. The building, tourism and gastronomy industries are particularly affected. In Austria, for example, the equity capital of the gastronomy industry is only 1.75%. Since, however, it will be equity capital that determines the allocation of loans in the future, then, according to Basel II, these businesses and industries will receive no or very few loans. The consequences would be disastrous. Businesses would no longer be able to invest and modernise and would have to close. We would lose thousands if not many thousands of businesses and jobs. I have to agree with the rapporteur’s call for these repercussions to be analysed to reveal the negative effects of Basel II and to allow counter measures to be introduced at the same time to prevent them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001196.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001196.txt','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','Mr President, a whole host of names has already been found for the instrument of reinforced cooperation, presumably with a view to making it more comprehensible to the citizens. It is not the name though, but the practical form it takes, that will decide whether it will serve the interests of the European Union. The report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs argues that differentiation can only be deemed to serve any purpose if it is conceived as a process which allows for exceptions to the rule. However, it seems to me that the report inclines in the opposite direction. I have always rejected any form of differentiated integration for reasons pertaining to legal theory, but also for pragmatic reasons, believing that it would allow a majority of Member States to determine the direction of policy, and deny countries joining at a later stage any codecision rights in these matters. I still clearly recall how, in the time before Amsterdam, in what was still the institutional committee, discussions on flexibility went on for weeks. The arguments against and the warnings about a multi-speed Europe, are still ringing in my ears. No one has been able to explain to me yet why things are any different now.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001197.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001197.txt','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','Mr President, the Council common position on the liberalisation of postal services guarantees that there will be a controlled opening of the market in these services in Europe. We need to adhere to the planned target dates and weight limits, as they will make it possible to liberalise the postal sector, with all the advantages to be gained from fair competition, in a gradual and organised way. As always, if areas of public services are to be liberalised, the opening process needs to be carefully controlled and implemented with regard to security of supply and social issues. The compromise worked out in committee concerning the production of regular reports on the application of the directive as a source of information for future development is therefore to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the economic, social and territorial consequences of the liberalisation process need to be taken into account when making policy. It is, however, questionable whether it really is right for the directive to make recommendations to the competent social partners, as has been suggested, for example, in one amendment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001198.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001198.txt','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','Mr President, one of the principles governing the budgetary process for 2001 is that of saving money. It is just as well, given that of the 15 Member States only 7 are likely to be able to present a positive balance sheet for the year 2000. There is therefore little prospect of us receiving additional revenue in the form of higher contribution payments from the Member States. We have certainly got our priorities right in Budget 2001. To that extent, the rapporteurs are to be congratulated. It is a fact that the unemployment rate is too high in Europe, particularly as this affects the weak members of society, i.e. young people, women and the long-term unemployed. We must therefore support all the measures designed to boost small and medium-sized enterprises. We need more entrepreneurs in Europe, who, in their turn, will create more jobs. There should be no question of Europe failing to keep the promises it makes. The truth though, is that many European politicians promise funds that they, or their committees, then fail to make available at the end of the day. I am referring to the absolutely crucial payments required by the Balkan countries, which the Council has now cut back on. However, it is also unacceptable that many of Europe’s priorities are financed in such a way that the poor are ultimately the ones to suffer. It was therefore both right and important that the Council’s extensive cuts in agriculture, totalling EUR 55 million, were corrected again. But at the end of the day, Europe’s priorities will only be financially viable in the long-term if Europe’s economy goes full steam ahead. The tax burden must therefore be reduced in percentage terms, and only an economic upturn and accompanying economic growth will secure increased state revenue. In addition, our administrative systems must be modernised, and it is our duty to lead by example. I therefore hope that the newly created budgetary line – which a few people, myself included, have been critical of – for financing the European parties, is not used to award funds to those who have already squandered away funds made available at national level and are now in fact in debt. I also hope that the conditions attached to the establishment of 400 additional service posts within the Commission will actually be fulfilled. I hope that in the course of further negotiations with the Council these principles will actually be upheld, and that in this way, we will be able to jointly adopt a budget for 2001 that benefits the citizens.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001199.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001199.txt','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','Mr President, I would like to refer to the Green Paper, specifically that on consumer protection. It would be possible to make a long job of this, or to say something very brief, and the speaking time available to me leads me to choose the second option. I believe that there are already adequate rules on the essential parts of what the Green Paper covers. I therefore have in mind only the directives on misleading and comparative advertising or the fact that all the Member States have laws on duress and the use of force. From the point of view of practical implementation, if one takes into account the scope of the amended directives on distance selling and of the proposed regulation on sales promotions in the internal market, the only consumers to which this would be applicable in cross-border business transactions would be tourists. That, again, does not add up to much. I therefore see no need for a framework directive in this area. What would be more important, in order to shine some light into the jungle in the interests of consumer protection, would be clarification of how the directives applicable in this area interact. Unlike some of those who have spoken before me, I do not expect an additional framework directive to achieve that.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10012.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10012.txt','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','Mr President, no one would seriously question that food safety, food quality, consumer protection and sustainable agriculture should be priority economic policy objectives for the EU. But as we all know, there is more than one way to skin a cat, so the real question is how we intend to achieve this objective in practice. Off-the-shelf solutions are often used to achieve policy objectives – in this case, the Costa Neves report cites the new European Food Safety Authority. We all know that new authorities need additional budgetary resources, but that these are hard to come by. If we really want to achieve the economic policy objective I have mentioned, we cannot rely on doing this just by creating a new authority. No, if we want to attain this goal, we have to reform the common agricultural policy, particularly, of course, with the planned eastward enlargement in mind. In previous parliamentary terms, we have supported large agricultural concerns at the expense of small farmers. We need to act quickly to put this right, so that the remaining small farms, which have always produced food of a very high quality, once again receive an income guaranteeing their economic existence. That is the only way we can translate these objectives into reality.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100120.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100120.txt','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','Madam President, great praise has been showered on Mr Söderman and also on the two rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis. It is as a matter of principle that I wish to reiterate this, having read this great tome that comes out every year and found that he has achieved an enormous amount. It is lamentable that the Committee on Petitions is prevented from playing the part to which it might do justice by the excessive inadequacy of the resources with which it is equipped. The Committee on Petitions must be a real point of contact for citizens, but the Council should also take even more account of it. The Nice Treaty states that the European Union must be brought closer to its citizens. This might present an opportunity to do this at this level, and it is enormously important that the Ombudsman has offered to develop joint activities with local and regional ombudsmen and with committees on petitions. The European Union will always find it difficult to be recognised in the Member States as the servant of the people that it is meant to be. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where it is enormously important that the Charter should become legally binding and be incorporated into the Treaties. If we do not manage to force this through, we will find the European Union\'s credibility hard to defend.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001200.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001200.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.','Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the fate of the entire European Union is far more closely intertwined with Russia than we imagine at present. After 70 years of the Soviet system, the future development of Russia is of course problematic, based as it is on a combination of deep-rooted structures and a new system. As I see it, the position of the European Union can only be to provide active support during this massive restructuring process. Over the next few decades, Russia will be Europe\'s most important energy supply partner. Even during the Soviet era, Russia has always been a key player in stabilising world peace. That should not blind us to the problems in Chechnya, and those problems cannot be denied, but we have to see the overall picture. Furthermore, Europe does not have the right to treat Russia differently from other countries that are also in breach of human rights. I would like to stress once again, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this by no means justifies the situation in Chechnya, but we do need a careful analysis of that area. Europe needs to proceed on the basis that only a fair and open partnership between equals can succeed in the long term. The most important steps to be taken are systematic actions to build trust, to establish fair trade relations, and to reinforce Russia\'s economic development and provide any form of assistance that will promote the development of democracy, a process that has still not been completed after 12 or 13 years. It must be evident that without a stable, democratic and strong Russia world peace will be at even greater risk than it already is at present.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001201.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001201.txt','Mr President, in view of the way in which the list of speakers has been manipulated today in order to put paid to my colleague Mr Hager, I have only this to say to you: if the Austrian referee Benko had broken all the rules in the game between France and Portugal, as Madam President has done today, then France would not even have reached the final. That is the funny side of it. The less amusing aspect of the conflict we are engaged in today is that there are several hundred delegates sitting here who are actually willing to accept this without protest!','Mr President, in view of the way in which the list of speakers has been manipulated today in order to put paid to my colleague Mr Hager, I have only this to say to you: if the Austrian referee Benko had broken all the rules in the game between France and Portugal, as Madam President has done today, then France would not even have reached the final. That is the funny side of it. The less amusing aspect of the conflict we are engaged in today is that there are several hundred delegates sitting here who are actually willing to accept this without protest!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001202.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001202.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the Ombudsman’s Annual Report that, as we have now heard, the main complaint of the citizens is about lack of transparency. But it appears that not everyone concerned is aware of this problem. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation on public access to documents which you, Mr Söderman, rightly criticised in public as not going far enough. Indeed there has been quite a lot written on the subject. The spirit underlying this proposal can be gauged from the statement by the Advisory Committee of Independent Experts. According to the experts’ second report, like all political institutions the Commission needs room to consider, to formulate policy before it becomes public, because policy that is made directly before the public eye is often bad policy. As a representative of the European public, I find this approach to questions of transparency and of policy-making in general unacceptable. So I firmly support Mr Södermann’s justified criticism!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I gather from the Ombudsman’s Annual Report that, as we have now heard, the main complaint of the citizens is about lack of transparency. But it appears that not everyone concerned is aware of this problem. The Commission has submitted a proposal for a regulation on public access to documents which you, Mr Söderman, rightly criticised in public as not going far enough. Indeed there has been quite a lot written on the subject. The spirit underlying this proposal can be gauged from the statement by the Advisory Committee of Independent Experts. According to the experts’ second report, like all political institutions the Commission needs room to consider, to formulate policy before it becomes public, because policy that is made directly before the public eye is often bad policy. As a representative of the European public, I find this approach to questions of transparency and of policy-making in general unacceptable. So I firmly support Mr Södermann’s justified criticism!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001203.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001203.txt','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','Mr President, the rapporteur has presented an impressive report which makes it clear that the South Caucasus states are of key importance for Europe\'s security. In particular, the fossil fuels and energy reserves known or suspected to exist in abundance in these countries, and their strategic position as the new \'silk route\' for oil and gas, give them a global political dimension. This is both a blessing and a curse for them. At present, promoting social and economic development in these states is undoubtedly the imperative. Against this background, the resources allocated by the EU naturally seem distinctly insubstantial. It goes without saying that closer ties with the European Union are a desirable objective. The EU must not renege on existing agreements such as the closure of the nuclear power station in Armenia. As regards the fraught historical relations between Turkey and Armenia, we must avoid awakening hopes on either side that the European Union will assume the role of referee in this conflict.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001204.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001204.txt','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','Mr President, however right and proper it is to discuss how we go about disarming the Iraqi dictator, I would like to thank the few Members present in the Chamber, and most of all Mr Poettering and Mr Watson, for reminding us who is our friend in this dispute and who our foe. Looking at all the banners here in the Chamber I see, over and over again, the faces of the representatives of democratic states, but never the face of Saddam Hussein. Hatred of the USA may well make temporary allies of groups with extremely divergent political views, but it will never be able to be the basis for a common European foreign policy. On the contrary, it will only be an obstacle to it. For the benefit of those who come to this House with good advice on how to deal with dictatorships, let me just read out what was said this week by President Kagame of Rwanda: ‘I hope that the Security Council and the UN act decisively in Iraq, and not in the way they did in Rwanda, for the Council can reach the wrong decisions. It did that in Rwanda, and it lost us a million people.’','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001205.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001205.txt','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','Mr President, we must be perfectly clear about the scale of all this. We are currently releasing as much CO2 per day as has been bound in the last 3000 years. If we add that up over the course of a year, we are actually moving backwards in one go, at a rate of one million years per year. In this sense, the plans of the Council and the Commission do not of course go far enough by any means and are actually merely cosmetic actions. What we need in the long term are not voluntary agreements, but thorough analyses of the real costs and to make the whole tax system environmentally friendly. If these things are not done, it simply will not work! Within the framework of the current agreement on the common position, the requirement in Amendment No 5, that is, an EU Directive with legally binding targets for renewable energies to be achieved, is the minimum condition necessary if the Paper in any form can be taken seriously to any great extent.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001206.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001206.txt','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','Madam President, I cannot but endorse the rapporteur’s view, as Europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. The average tax rate in Europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in Japan and the USA, and with its consequences we are all familiar. We have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. The Commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the Member States’ finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the EU. Doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. As the Member States would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. If we do not seize this opportunity, Europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. It could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. This would be a pity, as we need a strong Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001207.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001207.txt','Mr President, I have had a dream in which Mr Fatuzzo\'s daughter phoned up my son, who is also studying law, and asked him whether he approved of the way I voted on Mr Duff\'s report. I am unable to give out his response to this, as I awoke with something of a shock. I therefore want to make it perfectly clear that we voted in favour of the report even though I see some of the problems as being the other way around. My primary difference of opinion with the rapporteur is that I believe that the possible problem of the supreme courts coming to divergent judgments in matters of basic rights has not been resolved. As a former supreme court judge, I know what I am talking about. Despite this, the institutionalisation of basic rights prevails, and so the vote has been in favour of the report as a whole.','Mr President, I have had a dream in which Mr Fatuzzo\'s daughter phoned up my son, who is also studying law, and asked him whether he approved of the way I voted on Mr Duff\'s report. I am unable to give out his response to this, as I awoke with something of a shock. I therefore want to make it perfectly clear that we voted in favour of the report even though I see some of the problems as being the other way around. My primary difference of opinion with the rapporteur is that I believe that the possible problem of the supreme courts coming to divergent judgments in matters of basic rights has not been resolved. As a former supreme court judge, I know what I am talking about. Despite this, the institutionalisation of basic rights prevails, and so the vote has been in favour of the report as a whole.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001208.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001208.txt','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work. We have what are per se excellent basic documents in the field of renewable energy sources, such as the White Paper referred to, which contains a brilliant critical analysis. But, on balance, everyone is in favour. Everyone says yes, we need these new sources of energy. They are a fundamental component of the 21st century, of the 21st century way of thinking. But everyone has slightly different ideas and, as a result, we often fail to find a standard line which will allow us to achieve these objectives. The second point is that we tend to polarise, and that causes problems. On the one hand, we say, there are the advocates of renewable energy sources, ecologically-minded, forward-looking people. On the other hand, there are the energy suppliers, oil traders and oil producers, who want exactly the opposite. All we are doing is fanning the flames of enmity. I think we should put this enmity behind us and acknowledge that these renewable sources of energy only have one enemy. That enemy is our ignorance of the fantastic opportunities which they offer us. First, there are ecological advantages and, secondly, there are job opportunities. Thirdly, I think that whatever we invest in this area is neither subsidy nor promotion but sensible investment from a national economic point of view. We must recognise that. Fourthly, we must bear in mind that sources of fossil fuels have been accompanied recently by price fluctuations ranging from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel. Fifthly, more and more studies are implying that actual sources of fossil fuels are much smaller than we perceive them to be today. Sixthly, we are conducting discussions throughout the world – and we can see this happening from Chechnya via the Gulf to Africa – about earth’s remaining resources. If we now recognise that you are also a bringer of peace, then we will probably have made a huge step if we accept this report tomorrow.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001209.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001209.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in today\'s vote on the copyright directive I voted for Amendments Nos 101 or 55 and 53. What is involved here, to all intents and purposes, is the introduction of stronger copyright laws through the back door, further strengthening the hand of large suppliers, while, as a consequence, many small suppliers will be unable to operate successfully in the marketplace. The reason being that they cannot afford long-drawn-out procedures and patent rights. What is at issue here, moreover, is the scope of the directive, which is intended to cover breaches of copyright. I believe that this applies when we are talking about commercial objectives with direct and indirect economic advantages. That is why I voted for Amendment No 53. It is not true to say that this directive creates greater legal certainty, because there is no clear and uniform definition. If it is to achieve the Lisbon strategy, the EU needs patent legislation that protects financially weak, generally small companies and inventors, and thus encourages innovation. What the EU does not need is patent legislation that leads to a monopolisation of patent rights.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100121.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100121.txt','Mr President, paragraph 46 of the report calls on the Council’s Working Party on Nuclear Safety to report to Parliament on the implementation of safety measures for Temelin before accession negotiations are concluded. This requirement is proper and important because the operators are currently not even satisfying key minimum safety requirements such as renovation of the much discussed 28.8 m level. The much criticised quality of unsafe valves has not been improved either. The pipes still do not have a second protective coating as European standards require. The first protective coating is inadequate in any case. The Temelin nuclear power station does not therefore at all satisfy the conditions laid down by the Council working party as agreed in the Melk Process. If this is disregarded, the Commission’s attempt, early this month, to create new safety standards for nuclear power stations can be considered a failure from the outset.','Mr President, paragraph 46 of the report calls on the Council’s Working Party on Nuclear Safety to report to Parliament on the implementation of safety measures for Temelin before accession negotiations are concluded. This requirement is proper and important because the operators are currently not even satisfying key minimum safety requirements such as renovation of the much discussed 28.8 m level. The much criticised quality of unsafe valves has not been improved either. The pipes still do not have a second protective coating as European standards require. The first protective coating is inadequate in any case. The Temelin nuclear power station does not therefore at all satisfy the conditions laid down by the Council working party as agreed in the Melk Process. If this is disregarded, the Commission’s attempt, early this month, to create new safety standards for nuclear power stations can be considered a failure from the outset.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001210.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001210.txt','Mr President, yesterday Mr Poettering said that he was taking note of the decision made pursuant to Rule 143 Paragraph 1 as a democrat. He wanted yesterday\'s majority to prove themselves to be democrats if the tables were turned. I can assure him that we are behaving like democrats. It is precisely democrats, however, who are deeply concerned about the Rules of Procedure being complied with. If, in accordance with Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure, the inadmissibility – due to legal shortcomings – of a specific item on the agenda is once moved and agreed, then in my view there is no possibility of magically reinstating it on the agenda by means of Rule 111 Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 111 Paragraph 2 provides, you see, that the agenda may not be amended, except in pursuance of Rule 143, amongst others, or on a proposal from the President. That is an exclusive rule. Since here the case in Rule 143 has occurred the second case does not apply. This means, in other words, that today\'s debate, in my view, is at variance with the Rules of Procedure, which is why I do not wish to contribute any further to it. I have one comment on the legal base: in COM document 2000/444 the Commission also proposed adding a legal base for the statute to Article 191. This was in July 2000. I cannot understand the assertion that this cannot have been discussed in the committee.','Mr President, yesterday Mr Poettering said that he was taking note of the decision made pursuant to Rule 143 Paragraph 1 as a democrat. He wanted yesterday\'s majority to prove themselves to be democrats if the tables were turned. I can assure him that we are behaving like democrats. It is precisely democrats, however, who are deeply concerned about the Rules of Procedure being complied with. If, in accordance with Rule 143 of the Rules of Procedure, the inadmissibility – due to legal shortcomings – of a specific item on the agenda is once moved and agreed, then in my view there is no possibility of magically reinstating it on the agenda by means of Rule 111 Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 111 Paragraph 2 provides, you see, that the agenda may not be amended, except in pursuance of Rule 143, amongst others, or on a proposal from the President. That is an exclusive rule. Since here the case in Rule 143 has occurred the second case does not apply. This means, in other words, that today\'s debate, in my view, is at variance with the Rules of Procedure, which is why I do not wish to contribute any further to it. I have one comment on the legal base: in COM document 2000/444 the Commission also proposed adding a legal base for the statute to Article 191. This was in July 2000. I cannot understand the assertion that this cannot have been discussed in the committee.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001211.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001211.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions. That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the effective functioning of the institutions is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU\'s documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine \"the effective functioning of the institutions\". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the \"effective functioning of the institutions\" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001212.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001212.txt','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','The Members of the Austrian Freedom Party will be rejecting both Mr Bourlanges’ motion for a resolution (individual plan III – Commission) and Mr Virrankoski’s (further individual plans), since the principles of transparency and efficiency in the budget procedure were not respected. Nor is it possible to carry out effective supervision of the Union’s budgetary procedure. Apart from that, the Commission operates far too ponderously. The processing of applications and payments to the citizens of the Union in some cases takes more than 18 months, leading to justifiable criticism of the administration of the Union. Insufficient funds and programmes are provided in the Budget 2000 for real problems such as, for example, the high rate of unemployment. The Union is somewhat helpless in the face of the effects of globalisation and the introduction of the euro. Instead of developing employment schemes or programmes promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, the Union indulges in an administration which is far too expensive, with two parliament buildings, for instance. The challenge for the future will be whether the EU can manage to draw up common principles which ensure that an economic recovery returns to Europe through which the problems of the labour market can for the most part, be eliminated. To this end it will also be necessary, however, for the administrations of the Union and national states to be structured more effectively. Since it cannot seriously be discerned that the Union can contribute to an economic recovery in Europe, the Budget for 2000 is rejected in its entirety.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001213.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regard this amendment of the Directive on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs as a step in the right direction on a long road. Its aims are clear and undisputed. The first aim is to create traceability of foodstuffs back to their origins, in other words maximum transparency. The second is to restore consumer confidence in European food products after the BSE crisis and the dioxin scandal. I believe that reversal of the burden of proof, as proposed in Amendment No 4, is absolutely essential if these aims are to be achieved. The food industry has the necessary information to hand. For those outside the industry, it is sometimes utterly impossible to obtain this information. The present proposal is the first in a series of initiatives based on the White Paper on food safety. It is a start. The Union certainly cannot rest on these laurels. A long road lies ahead of us.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regard this amendment of the Directive on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs as a step in the right direction on a long road. Its aims are clear and undisputed. The first aim is to create traceability of foodstuffs back to their origins, in other words maximum transparency. The second is to restore consumer confidence in European food products after the BSE crisis and the dioxin scandal. I believe that reversal of the burden of proof, as proposed in Amendment No 4, is absolutely essential if these aims are to be achieved. The food industry has the necessary information to hand. For those outside the industry, it is sometimes utterly impossible to obtain this information. The present proposal is the first in a series of initiatives based on the White Paper on food safety. It is a start. The Union certainly cannot rest on these laurels. A long road lies ahead of us.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001214.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001214.txt','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','If the droit de suite is regarded as part of copyright and hence as an artist\'s prerogative, it makes no sense to grant artists a right which they do not want. In Austria, which is one of the three countries where there is no droit de suite , artists tend to agree that the droit de suite would have distinctly adverse effects, especially on young artists. Even many established artists, whom it would benefit, have voiced their opposition to its introduction for reasons of professional solidarity. Besides, it is more than questionable whether there is any identifiable need for harmonisation in this sensitive area. The introduction of the droit de suite , indeed, would lead to an erosion of the market in works of art with all its detrimental consequences; the small galleries, which have a special part to play in encouraging young artistic talent, would come under particular pressure. For these reasons, the Members representing the Freedom Alliance have decided not to endorse the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001215.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001215.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Affairs Committee has commissioned a legal opinion on the issue of the Beneš Decrees. This greatly gladdens my heart. I see them as not only a bilateral problem; they continue to be applicable in law, and the question therefore arises of whether they are compatible with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Previous progress reports have, unfortunately, had not a word to say about this. Commissioner Verheugen has given it as his opinion that the Beneš Decrees are not merely a legal problem but a political and moral one. The ethnic cleansings and expulsions in the most recent wars in the Balkans have without doubt revealed a European dimension. What is at the heart of the Beneš Decrees is no different. The international jurist Felix Ermacora came to the conclusion, in a legal opinion on the Beneš Decrees, as recently as 1992 that they were incompatible with current international law, thus indicating that they cannot be reconciled with EU law either. It is with real excitement that I await the outcome of this opinion and the reaction of the Commission and the Council to it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001216.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001216.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 January 2002, economic and monetary union will be completed. For each Member State, there will be a continued and binding obligation and need to consolidate public budgets on a sustained basis. This is set out not only in the Commission report but also by the rapporteur herself. I fully support this objective. I therefore welcome the report\'s proposal that the current requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact be expanded with new and individual objectives for each country. Consolidating the public budget is the main priority for every government in order to create the required scope for action. As a representative of Austria, I know what I am talking about. Despite all the difficulties and a mountain of debt, the new government is working to ensure that the ambitious goal of achieving a zero deficit remains in place.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001217.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001217.txt','The non-attached Members will endorse the joint resolution in the final vote but would like, at the same time, to point out that the position on the question of reforming the Treaties and on the preparation and holding of the Intergovernmental Conference, which your voting behaviour in respect of the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report gave expression to, remains unaltered.','The non-attached Members will endorse the joint resolution in the final vote but would like, at the same time, to point out that the position on the question of reforming the Treaties and on the preparation and holding of the Intergovernmental Conference, which your voting behaviour in respect of the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report gave expression to, remains unaltered.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001218.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001218.txt','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','Mr President. What struck me first as I studied the final document last weekend was its order of priority. I understand perfectly well that the enlargement of the Union must be given priority in the wake of the upbeat tempo adopted by the Commission for the new accession strategy. However, I would have considered it wiser for an enlargement Summit to give precedence to the matters facing the intergovernmental conference, thereby emphasising that even the tiniest enlargement will not work unless outstanding institutional questions are solved. However, I was pleased to see that Helsinki resisted both the temptation and the intensive lobbying of the Commission and Parliament and basically concentrated the agenda of the intergovernmental conference on the famous Amsterdam leftovers. This should ensure that other topics will not be dealt with until these have been wrapped up. Improvements on Amsterdam in the institutional area not only concern fundamental matters, they also call for tremendous effort. Whether or not the decision on Turkey was for the greater good of the Union and Turkey, only time will tell. We very much doubt it. By contrast, the progress made with the CFSP was extremely positive, even if it failed to answer a number of fundamental questions, including some of significance to Austria. The current situation shows how vital progress is in this area. The Union may well be seething inwardly, but in truth it stands paralysed and helpless in the face of events in Chechnya. As far as employment policy is concerned, I expect more from the promised economic recovery, from the upswing, than from the action plans on paper. But, all in all, Helsinki achieved an interesting result!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001219.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001219.txt','Mr President, let me say first of all that I appreciate the way we can talk to each other here in a fairly intimate atmosphere. There is no doubt that it is easier to ask important questions than to find the answers to them. The President\'s statement notwithstanding, all of us can only wish these answers to be found, but I want to make allowances all the same for the fact that Laeken saw a very important task performed, that of getting the Convention on track with a president who is not only distinguished but whose appointment also augurs well for the future. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was our most recent opportunity to learn that the success of such a process largely depends on who presides over it, so let me say that the youthful attire of the President-in-Office led me to fear that the Convention would be given a rather ‘young’ and ‘dynamic’ chair. Unlike Mrs Frassoni and Mr Bonde, I was therefore rather pleased to learn that we were still going to give preference to the opinions of those older and wiser – something which marks out the higher cultures. The inauguration of the Convention was, though, the only outstanding achievement. Speaking from an Austrian point of view, I find Point 59 regrettable on the grounds that it has turned out to be very narrow and does not do justice to the need for Europe-wide safety standards.','Mr President, let me say first of all that I appreciate the way we can talk to each other here in a fairly intimate atmosphere. There is no doubt that it is easier to ask important questions than to find the answers to them. The President\'s statement notwithstanding, all of us can only wish these answers to be found, but I want to make allowances all the same for the fact that Laeken saw a very important task performed, that of getting the Convention on track with a president who is not only distinguished but whose appointment also augurs well for the future. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was our most recent opportunity to learn that the success of such a process largely depends on who presides over it, so let me say that the youthful attire of the President-in-Office led me to fear that the Convention would be given a rather ‘young’ and ‘dynamic’ chair. Unlike Mrs Frassoni and Mr Bonde, I was therefore rather pleased to learn that we were still going to give preference to the opinions of those older and wiser – something which marks out the higher cultures. The inauguration of the Convention was, though, the only outstanding achievement. Speaking from an Austrian point of view, I find Point 59 regrettable on the grounds that it has turned out to be very narrow and does not do justice to the need for Europe-wide safety standards.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100122.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100122.txt','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','Mr President, we have all seen the European indicators. Economic growth in Europe is slowing down. The reasons include rising oil prices and higher interest rates, which are already dampening company profits. We now have a choice of several measures designed mainly to bring about higher rates of economic growth in Europe. Under no circumstances, however, should we simply increase public investment. We need more forwards on the European economy team. There are too many defenders on the playing field and too many reserves who never even see the ball, which is why I think that, first and foremost, we need to improve the framework conditions for our working population. Overly high tax rates must be reduced so that it pays to work in Europe. National budgets must be reorganised mainly by reducing bureaucracy rather than adding to the burden on our people.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001220.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001220.txt','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','Mr President, this terrorist attack in the USA affects us all, unfortunately, and not only because there are probably hundreds of Europeans among its victims. Thirty Austrians alone are missing to date. Europeans should be seen unreservedly offering solidarity and cooperation in response to this terrorist attack, and the European partners should refrain from imposing conditions. The EU Member States, Spain and France, have, without doubt, set a standard here, both sending politicians to the USA at a very early stage. I wish to appeal to the Austrian political parties to lay their so-called neutrality completely aside, as there can be no neutrality between terrorists and innocent victims. Just as important, in this international joint endeavour, as the working relationship of the democratic countries with each other will be their cooperation with moderate Arab States and with those with Moslem majority populations. The most important foundation for a successful counterstrike this time will be effective international solidarity. And as for those who offer us their pacifist fantasies and words of wisdom about military restraint, I should like to invite them to New York, so they can visit the school my children go to and talk to the children who have lost their fathers or mothers or, indeed, both parents in this attack.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001221.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001221.txt','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.','Mr President, these progress reports on the common foreign and security policy, which are certainly very comprehensive and informative, also mercilessly expose the regrettable weaknesses of the Union in this domain. Among the performances that surely give us no cause for pride are our rather embarrassing uncoordinated attempts to act as a mediator in the Middle East conflict. I believe that we Europeans bear a special responsibility for peace in the Middle East, a responsibility which we do not exercise and which is evidently beyond our capabilities. The one-sided apportionment of blame which we have been hearing in this House, the condemnations of one side or the other in this conflict and the discrepancies in the voting patterns of the EU Member States at the United Nations on 21 October of this year – which one of the rapporteurs quite rightly criticised, by the way – have further reduced the Union\'s chances of assuming a productive and responsible role in the Middle East. We are not talking here about different interpretations of the causes of the conflict by the individual EU Member States and by various politicians, which is something the political leaders might finally come to recognise. The only thing we are talking about is supporting a peace process and gaining the trust of the parties to this conflict. Both a viable Palestinian state and Israel\'s legitimate security requirements must be recognised by all members of the Union, otherwise we shall never adopt a common position on the peace efforts, and Europe will lose every ounce of credibility as a mediator alongside the United States. The Middle East conflict could therefore become the acid test of the efficiency of European Middle East policy. If we as Europeans cannot play a responsible role in the resolution of this conflict, independently of the United States, we must assume that we shall not be trusted to act as a mediator in any other regional conflicts either.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001222.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001222.txt','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.','Mr President, with the imminent accession of the Central and Eastern European countries to the Union, an efficient rail transport network is becoming more and more crucial to smooth cross-border rail transport, which is why we need to integrate the national networks into a single European network. Ironing out differences in the specifications used by individual railway undertakings is an important step towards a trans-European network. Creating transport connections and removing traffic bottlenecks in less favoured or remote regions is another important step. Developing the infrastructure will also give these regions a chance to participate in and profit from the internal market.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001223.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001223.txt','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','Mr President, it is right that we should consider another aspect of this communication, namely the fact that the planned 18% saving would also be a gigantic boost to the European economy. An energy saving of 18% is equivalent to a drop in energy consumption of 1 900 terawatt/hours. That represents a saving of EUR 124 billion, which could be used to enhance the economic potential of the regions within the European Union. If we extrapolate from these figures, we find that consistent implementation of this programme could create about a million jobs in the European Union. The second issue is the protection of resources. We must be aware that 90% of the oil that is extracted today was found more than 20 years ago; in other words, it comes from sources that are more than 20 years old. Only 10% of the oil that is being extracted today was discovered in the last 20 years. Once again, I cannot fail to mention here that the procurement of oil is inextricably linked with the use of military power. We see that in the Middle East, we see it in the Caucasus, and we see it in Africa. The most important things in this context are to create awareness and to develop intelligent models for the use of combined heat and power, judiciously funded contracting models. If we are serious about this, it is essential that the aims which are formulated here be given binding force. Otherwise our work will merely have been a statistical exercise and an inefficient use of our own energy. It is imperative that we remove the fiscal, bureaucratic and financial barriers.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001224.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001224.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','Mr President, dismayed as I am at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to confine my comments on the matter at hand to the issue of closer cooperation, in all its guises. There has been a marked change in attitudes towards closer cooperation since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  I can still clearly remember how long we used to spend discussing this, in what was still the institutional committee at the time. The upshot was that Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Tsatsos – whom I greatly esteem – produced a report highlighting the risks associated with Member States developing at different rates, and welcoming the fact that the Treaty would be framed in such a way as to keep these risks down to a manageable level. The present view taken by Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen is that closer cooperation must serve to stimulate the development of the Union, and they even recommend that it should have its own chapter in the EU Treaty. This is an astonishing turn of events, when one considers that this idea was once deemed the ultimate threat to the integration process. A multi-speed Europe has become the order of the day. We are now looking, by way of an attempt to deal with enlargement, to the possibility of a third of Member States forming a “vanguard”. All this means is that those Member States not wishing to join the frontrunners will be left with a choice between complete non-participation or joining a system that was originally thought to be without merit at a later stage. Multi-speed integration of this kind cannot act as a guarantee for coherent and stable development of the Union. On the contrary, I am convinced that this plan is far more likely to jeopardise the Union’s goals than to help improve its decision-making structures. In any case, that was the view taken by the architects of the EU as recently as 1996.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001225.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001225.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.','Mr President, Commissioner, the measures proposed by the Commission so far in order to deal with the BSE crisis are mostly too little, too late and unilateral at that. The Commission does not act, it reacts. It is not pro-active enough to get a real grip on the situation. Many of the questions which bother the people affected have yet to be answered. How do we explain the different prices for BSE tests in Europe? What will we do to address distortions of competition? Why is there no effective help for the innocent victims? I refer in particular to farmers in countries which are still BSE-free and to meat product companies, abattoirs etc., all of which are struggling or fear for their existence. We are helping the wrong people. The incineration campaign in particular is blurring the data, sweeping the problem under the carpet and, most importantly, doing nothing to help the innocent victims. In countries which cannot incinerate, cattle are left standing in their stalls. The people affected cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the burden. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget has been earmarked for this alone. Why are BSE tests on live animals not being promoted or imposed? You must realise that, if we lose our farmers, then we also lose the very basis of our existence, because it is mainly the farmers, especially in our regions, and I refer here to the Alpine regions, who take care of the countryside. If we lose the farmers, we lose our very existence.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001226.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001226.txt','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)','Mr President, strengthening transatlantic relations is a welcome move. However, there are several points which are crucial for Europe because they directly affect our lives. They are – and I make no claim that the list is complete – the Kyoto protocol, the biodiversity convention, involvement in the International Criminal Court and a complete ban on atomic weapon tests. Even the atrocious crimes of 11 September must not be used as a pretext for aggressive nuclear arming in the USA, which has even admitted it is planning to carry out pre-emptive attacks using mini atomic weapons. It is highly ominous that the production of tritium for hydrogen bombs, which stopped in 1988, is to start up again and that a new factory manufacturing plutonium parts for atom bombs is to be built. It is also a matter of acute concern that the USA has indeed signed a comprehensive ban on atomic weapon tests but has never ... (The President cut the speaker off.)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001227.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001227.txt','Mr President, I only wanted to ask Mrs Flemming not to call me “no one”!','Mr President, I only wanted to ask Mrs Flemming not to call me “no one”!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001228.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the Community\'s initiative against anti-personnel mines. I only have to picture children mutilated by mines to reach the very personal conclusion that every euro spent on opposing this madness is money well spent. One point that NGO representatives have criticised in conversation with me is the combination of military activity with NGO work found in points 11 and 15 of the resolution. In the course of many years\' work, the NGOs have won people\'s confidence and respect, and I fear that such a combination could compromise the independence of the NGOs and permanently damage their relationship of trust with people in need. People have a justified mistrust of uniformed personnel, born of many years of war. We should therefore do everything we can to provide continuing support for the work of NGOs.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001229.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001229.txt','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. He sums up very clearly to what an extent the success of a product, film in this instance, is dependent on the promotion of sales through marketing and advertising. When American production companies set aside 30% of their budgets for marketing, it is not to be wondered at that European products lose in direct competition for customers, when they themselves use only 3 to 6% of their budgets for this purpose. It follows that European film producers must do more to market their products. We, as taxpayers, are also entitled to demand that they do so. One could envisage state support for follow-up projects being made dependent on the filmmakers\' efforts at reaching their public. More subsidies cannot be the solution on their own. Too much money was spent in the past on films that never reached their public. Austria spends over EUR 30 million per annum on promoting films. Taking the number of cinema-goers into account, every ticket to see a film is subsidised to the tune of EUR 1 000. State promotion of film cannot have this as its objective.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100123.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100123.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also voted against today’s proposal because I cannot support the use of common resources for purposes of research that is expressly prohibited in some Member States. Precisely because the Member States’ individual laws differ greatly on the matter of human embryo research, more restrictive positions on embryo research should not be ignored. It must therefore be left to each Member State to take its own decision, in accordance with its own laws, about the kind of research on which it will spend money and about the research purposes for which no funding will be made available. Finally, in view of the fact that, unlike adult stem cell research, there have still not been any unquestionably promising results in embryo research, I cannot understand why funding should be provided from the Sixth Framework Programme.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001230.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001230.txt','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.','Mr President, anyone who knows this paradise in South-East Asia as I do, having visited it several times in the last fifteen years, is bound to be appalled by the chronic supply shortages, the catastrophic infrastructural situation and the brutality of this highly repressive regime. Yet political systems like the regime in Burma/Myanmar only survive if there are enough states and private companies prepared to keep them alive through economic links. If we want to change the political system, we must also exert appropriate economic pressure. The double standards involved in calling for democracy while engaging in intensive trade with this country really should stop. However, this means that pressure must be brought to bear on those who single-mindedly continue to cultivate their economic links with the military regime with utter disregard for the need for democratisation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001231.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001231.txt','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.','The proposals in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report with regard to the reform of the Treaties in their institutional core areas provide for an extension of the qualified majority decision in the Council. Moreover, according to the report, international law as such should be amended, as the Parliament should be granted a right of approval with regard to the conclusion of future Treaties. This and many other problem issues fundamentally question the role of the Member States of the European Union as “Masters of the Treaties”. We non-attached Members therefore reject this report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001232.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001232.txt','Mr President, I voted against the report before us because it does not live up to the expectations created by the title. The main focus is on religious fundamentalism, with other forms of fundamentalism only being given a brief mention. Even if religious fundamentalism is the most significant form and stands out from other forms, it is nevertheless essential to recognise all forms of fundamentalism if a meaningful debate is to take place. The threats posed by fundamentalism are growing in a way that the events of 11 September suggest involve an enormous contempt for humanity. However, to do justice to the situation we cannot limit ourselves to religious aspects alone. Just as people obsessed with a fundamental order are to be found in all walks of life, this way of thinking is also prevalent throughout society. The logical consequence of recognising this can therefore only be that we should examine this whole area and not concentrate on just one form of this phenomenon, even if it is the form with the most adherents.','Mr President, I voted against the report before us because it does not live up to the expectations created by the title. The main focus is on religious fundamentalism, with other forms of fundamentalism only being given a brief mention. Even if religious fundamentalism is the most significant form and stands out from other forms, it is nevertheless essential to recognise all forms of fundamentalism if a meaningful debate is to take place. The threats posed by fundamentalism are growing in a way that the events of 11 September suggest involve an enormous contempt for humanity. However, to do justice to the situation we cannot limit ourselves to religious aspects alone. Just as people obsessed with a fundamental order are to be found in all walks of life, this way of thinking is also prevalent throughout society. The logical consequence of recognising this can therefore only be that we should examine this whole area and not concentrate on just one form of this phenomenon, even if it is the form with the most adherents.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001233.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001233.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the White Paper on food safety is a long overdue response to incidents like the BSE and dioxin crises, which deeply undermined consumers\' sense of security and destroyed their confidence. I particularly want to comment on two points. First, the creation of a network amongst Europe\'s research institutions is absolutely essential if we are to achieve our objective. But we need to avoid a situation in which the future European Food Safety Agency and, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin have overlapping responsibilities and powers. Not only the Commission, but also every Member State must be legally able to call upon this agency. This makes sense if the European Food Safety Agency is also to be able to operate independently of the Commission and if, whenever necessary, it is to take prompt crisis management action. However, the conditions for appealing to the Agency must be drawn up so that efficient and swift action is guaranteed. Second, a universal system for tracing the original ingredients of all food must be created. This principle must be consistently adhered to when the planned review of EU legislation on food labelling is carried out. That is the only way to regain consumers\' confidence in food production, which has been destroyed.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001234.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001234.txt','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.','Mr President, we have a multitude of outstanding questions post-Nice to which we require specific answers. They concern the dividing line between national and European powers, simplification of the Treaty, the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the role of national parliaments in the architecture of the European Union. Why should the final responsibility continue to rest with the Member States? This question relates closely to the definition of the purpose of the European Union. We should be clear on one point: remits need to be clearly defined if we expect people to accept legislative and political decisions at European level. Our top priority must therefore be to ensure that national parliaments are more involved in the run-up to the planned Intergovernmental Conference. First, in order to get the discussion process in the Member States started as early as possible and, secondly, in order to clarify in advance any problems which might arise during subsequent ratification.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001235.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001235.txt','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','The amendments put forward by the honourable Members Ford, Ceyhun, Boumediene-Thiery, Sörensen, Schroedter and Lambert seek to perpetuate a notion which the Wise Men have unequivocally rejected. A desire to link the issue of racism with the situation in Austria represents an attempt to defame the country of Austria. Many of those who do more than propose amendments by way of voicing their criticism of the situation in Austria, come from countries in which hostels for asylum seekers have been set on fire, right-wing extremists are on the march and gaining in influence, problems to do with minorities and foreigners go unresolved, and a great deal more. You will not find anything of this kind in Austria. The report compiled by the Council of Wise Men has confirmed that standards in Austria are above the European average, even in the most sensitive of areas. Yet you seek to lay all the blame at Austria’s door, and turn a blind eye to the Balkans in your own backyard. Instead of apologising to the Austrians for the injustices they have suffered on account of sanctions, you just carry on fanning the flames of resentment. If that is your idea of a united Europe, then that in itself is of great concern to me. Incidentally, we intend to vote in favour of the resolution put forward by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to the reference to the resolution of 16 March, but not only are we not prepared to vote in favour of the related resolution of 3 February this year, on the formation of the Austrian Government, we demand an apology from the European Parliament.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001236.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001236.txt','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact was introduced to safeguard the euro as a strong currency, but, in view of Europe\'s generally poor economic position and high rate of unemployment, it should be permissible to rethink or refine the stability criteria for the precise reason that this will keep the euro strong. A currency is as strong as its economy. If the economy is limping along, the currency will be weakened in the long term. The high level of tax in Europe weakens the economy and is not leaving private citizens enough room to manoeuvre or enough disposable income to boost consumer spending. Also, too much money is being poured into the grossly distended bureaucracy of the civil service. This must be changed. The euro needs not only a pact for stability, but also, primarily, for growth. Discussion of this issue is therefore both necessary and sensible, in order that the euro may in the long term become a strong rather than a weak currency.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001237.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001237.txt','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','Mr President, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur. Because of your commitment, we have been able to see off the attack the Council and Commission were making on the fundamental rights and rights to defence of Europe\'s citizens. It is not acceptable for defence counsel, solicitors, tax consultants and notaries simply to be turned into part of the public prosecution service. It is also evident that the battle to maintain rights to defence is not over yet. The directive still has to be transposed into national legislation, and we must continue to argue that it should not be subject to an excessively narrow interpretation at national level, thus restricting citizens\' fundamental rights and rights to defence. However, I can also assure you that I will be making representations to the appropriate Austrian authorities to make sure that precisely this does not happen.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001238.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some of the amendments tabled water down the substance and the objective of the Council’s proposal for a regulation on beef labelling. The argument being presented, as we have heard, is that we should not ask too much of consumers. An attempt is being made then to withhold information on the grounds that consumers are ostensibly stupid. To my mind, that is the wrong approach, and we should assume that consumers have a good grasp of things. We should provide consumers with information about the origin of the beef, offer them certainty and take consumer protection seriously. The implementing provisions for this regulation are being enacted under the committee procedure. That means that tomorrow we will have to vote on a legal text whose precise content is unknown. Even the Commission cannot tell us exactly what form these implementing provisions will take. I regard this as a very unfortunate procedure, which demonstrates the democratic deficit in the Community decision-making process.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001239.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001239.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the real value of the Nice Treaty is that it ushers in a phase of genuine reform of the Union – indispensable reform if the Community is to be prepared for enlargement. I shall welcome any more accurate timetable for enlargement to come out of Gothenburg, although to name specific candidate countries would be irresponsible, given the negotiating chapters still outstanding and the Irish vote. The Irish vote demands sensible reaction and analysis, even if only 33% of the electorate voted. This is not democratic fiddle-faddle. Wrongly interpreted, the result of the referendum implies that the Irish voted against enlargement. But what they voted on was the Nice Treaty. There have been numerous setbacks in the history of the Union: Denmark\'s no, Great Britain\'s policy during the first BSE crisis, the resignation of the Commission and the illegal sanctions against Austria. We must make a careful analysis of the reasons behind the Irish vote, which begs the question of what is wrong with the European project. We do not just need a public debate on the reform of the Union; we need more democracy and greater transparency on an integration process which is becoming ever more complex. The involvement of the national parliaments as the representatives of European democracy is a key point here.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100124.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100124.txt','For years now, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and this is something on which opinions can differ. They certainly can when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, the popular view will be that the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, is a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at the present time, being told that they will have to work for longer in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','For years now, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and this is something on which opinions can differ. They certainly can when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, the popular view will be that the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, is a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at the present time, being told that they will have to work for longer; in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001240.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001240.txt','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','Mr President, what I basically want to say is that I think there is no justification for the European Parliament having no right of codecision in nuclear matters. That decisions should be taken about support measures for a source of energy that in any case gets preferential treatment without the approval of the representatives of the European people is contrary to every democratic principle. In the final analysis, this is about nothing more or less than European taxpayers’ money. Any increase in Euratom’s credit limit should be firmly rejected. The transaction limit has not yet been reached, so there is not even any need for the increase. Safety improvements and decommissioning measures can and must be funded from the money available. Euratom loans are fundamentally inconsistent with the directive on the internal market in energy and put other energy sources at a disadvantage. As I see it, the directive on nuclear plant provides for nothing other than the control of the controllers, but it does not, unfortunately, put in place the uniformly rigorous, transparent and legally binding norms in the field of nuclear safety that Parliament has been demanding for years. If further hindrances to free competition in the energy market are to be avoided, the funds for decommissioning and waste disposal must be administered transparently and in strict and invariable separation from each other, and must be subject to monitoring by an independent authority. The way the rules are applied in France and Germany, with reserves used for quite different purposes, is a threat to free competition in the energy sector. What can be said, in general terms, about the storage of radioactive waste is that the mere fact that there is no sure solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste shows how irresponsible it is to build new nuclear power stations. It also beggars belief that certain countries are able to get rid of waste that gives off radiation by exporting it to – of all places – those third countries that are not so fussy about nuclear safety.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001241.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001241.txt','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages. It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle. The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding. The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take. The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas. Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition. Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001242.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001242.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fundamentally welcome the Commission\'s proposal for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, above all the Europe-wide coordination and the emphasis laid on basic research. Two points cause me concern. The first is that, when it comes to the definition of fundamental ethical principles, the mind of this House is divided between, on the one hand, banning embryo stem cell research outright and, on the other, permitting it. Where the boundary lies between a mere heap of cells and a human life is something we all no doubt have to decide for ourselves. It is a choice with far-reaching implications, one to be made on the basis of conscience. I would remind you, though, that research on embryo stem cells is prohibited in several Member States, including Austria. To use EU funds to finance research in one Member State which would be banned in another is unacceptable. The second thing that concerns me is that research funds totalling EUR 1.2 billion are being made available within the framework of the Euratom programme, over two-thirds of which go to nuclear research. Safety issues play only a subordinate role. I consider increased research into non-nuclear energy sources to be imperative. I regret that there is no reference to it in this report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001243.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001243.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, the decision of the Council at Ghent to give immediate humanitarian aid totalling EUR 320 million is unusually welcome. The same applies to European solidarity in the campaign against international terrorism. The next thing to do is to achieve a speedy halt to the fighting, above all to protect the population of Afghanistan. The world is still in shock from the attacks on New York and Washington. Two things strike me as being of particular importance, quite independently of the steps taken to date. The first is the complete explanation of the background to these crimes and the publication of the results. Without these, there is the risk that the attacks will give rise to legends which could poison many people\'s minds. This would represent an enduring victory for terrorism. What strikes me, secondly, is that the future reconstruction of Afghanistan presupposes, importantly, knowledge of the events in that country over the past twenty-five years. As we know relatively little about this period, I propose that this Parliament should set up a group to look into the region and comprehensively document the past three decades in that country. We could perhaps thereby take the first step towards a peaceful solution and a forward-looking outlook for Afghanistan.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001244.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001244.txt','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.','Mr President, the thorny problem in the text before us is, of course, the balance between the legally recognised obligation of professional secrecy, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty to pass information which assists the fight against money laundering to the appropriate authorities. The money-laundering directive imposes a string of obligations on credit and financial institutions, with the result that money launderers have simply switched to other sectors, hence the need to extend the scope of the directive to other professions. Whilst we of course welcome more stringent measures, they should not lead to a watering down of the obligation of professional secrecy for various professions, and above all for lawyers, notaries and tax consultants. Mr Rothley is right in saying that the text before us is chipping away at the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare , no one is bound to incriminate himself. However, that is the very compromise that we think is workable, and we believe that the need to balance professional secrecy on the one hand and the need to bring criminals to book on the other has been solved in an acceptable way, and we shall therefore be voting in favour of this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001245.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001245.txt','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','Mr President, negotiations with the Council were, yet again, not straightforward, but it is important that we were able eventually to come to an agreement on the question of the modernisation of the fishing fleet and on additional funds for the Member States\' frontier regions. The roles played by the Commission, and indeed also by some Members, were in our view not always transparent. The acceding countries must not have large amounts of promotional funds made available to them whilst the frontier regions of our Member States get no additional funds at all. These regions\' economic situation is often not much better than that in the acceding countries. The poor economic situation in the frontier regions of the Member States may well get even worse after the new countries join the EU, because differing levels of funding – almost all get Objective 1 funding – will greatly favour the frontier regions of the acceding countries, some of which already possess better transport infrastructure than is to be found in the frontier regions of the Member States. As an example of this, I would mention the airport at Laibach in Slovenia, which is more modern and much better developed than the airport at Klagenfurt in Southern Austria. The accession of the new states will, for the reasons I have mentioned, make it difficult, or almost impossible, to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the frontier regions of the Member States. We must, though, be clear in our own minds that the citizens in these regions can hardly be in favour of the accession of new countries under these circumstances.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001246.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001246.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that four members of the old Commission have reappeared in the new Commission, despite the fact that they were part of that collegiate body which, on account of mismanagement, was forced to resign, is one of the reasons why we have refused to give our approval to this Commission for the current period. We were also not in a position to grant our approval for the period following on account of the fact that several of the candidates have not unequivocally declared themselves fully and individually responsible, as required by their office. Mr Prodi has therefore passed up the opportunity to usher in a new start for the Commission, which is needed. He would have had a green light to replace the members from the previous Commission and thereby give a signal of transparency and integrity to the citizens of Europe. In the end, it is the aim of this Commission to consolidate its power base in terms of a European supergovernment. We do not agree with this development, nor does it correspond to the will of the citizens of Europe. Even if the resolution required for approval is to be regarded as a task conferred upon the Prodi Commission, which we certainly reject, we cannot agree to this because in this way, the fundamental responsibilities of this Parliament are allocated to one of the EU’s administrative bodies.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001247.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001247.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word it should be implemented. (Applause)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of my group when I say that we endorse the position expressed by Mr Rübig before the vote because I would find it totally absurd were it not also somewhat amusing. I do not think that the Members of this House can be called upon to be standardisation experts on technical issues. This report says, for instance, that parents with children in prams are people with reduced mobility. The question I ask myself is this: is the childminder, or the uncle or the grandfather who looks after this child for a day also a person with reduced mobility? Joking apart, I believe that the people of Europe who are following this debate are quite right to ask whether we in this House do not have more important things to do. We should leave things where they belong. Subsidiarity should not be just a nice word; it should be implemented. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001248.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001248.txt','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.','Austrian artists are opposed to the introduction of the resale right. They see the resale right as being a major economic disadvantage, because it will inevitably lead to a drop in the initial sale price. The introduction of the resale right will lead to a migration of the art market from Europe to countries such as the USA or Switzerland, because there is nothing of the kind there and resale prices for works of art will not therefore be forced up. Small gallery owners will be particularly hard hit, as they are far less able to withstand this pressure on prices. It is impossible to see why the resale right should be imposed on artists against their will as a form of copyright. For these reasons the Freedom Party is rejecting this report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001249.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001249.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to extend its ambitious programme on account of the unfair treatment Austria has been subjected to. I would particularly like to thank Mr Poettering for what he had to say in this connection. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, special emphasis is being placed on the European Union’s ability to function, which is in every sense pre-requisite to the success of the European unification process. However, in refusing to talk – albeit only bilaterally – and thereby causing a breakdown in communication, the 14 EU partner States are putting this self-same “ability to function” at great risk. The Commission must not stand idly by in a situation of this kind. It has a duty to see to it that the solidarity enshrined in the Treaties is upheld. With this in mind, I would ask you, President Prodi, to get personally involved in setting up a crisis meeting between the Heads of Government of Austria and the 14 EU partner States, so as to bring about détente and normalisation of relations. In acknowledgement of my responsibility as a parliamentarian, I myself sent a letter to this effect to all the Heads of Government yesterday.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100125.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100125.txt','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','Mr President, looking at the dramatic way the current geopolitical situation has become more acute since 11 September last, there is much to be said for Europe having a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will not, however, be an easy matter. When the USA – at a time when Bill Clinton was still President – and England bombed Baghdad shortly before Christmas 1999 without a UN mandate, I wrote a comment piece in an Austrian newspaper, Der Standard , the key point in which was that this bombardment, denounced by France, Italy, and Russia, and which drew a sharp protest note from the Vatican, had resulted in a fine crack running across Europe. Today, I leave it to you to judge whether this chasm has widened or become narrower in the meantime. I would also ask you to consider whether substantial European interests would be affected by an attack on Iraq or even on Iran, which is sought by certain hawks in the US administration who aim to topple the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt as well. It is in any case to be welcomed that the EU\'s Foreign Ministers, at the informal Council meeting in Elsinore expressed their opposition to military intervention in Iraq. This awakens hope that the current geopolitical tendency, led by the USA, of resorting to force rather than having recourse to international law, will not be endorsed in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001250.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001250.txt','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','Mr President, numerous aspects of enlargement have been raised, together with the economic, social and democratic implications. I am certain that all these issues will be resolved in the medium or long term. But one problem calls for immediate resolution. I refer to the closure of high-risk nuclear reactors. An accident would affect the whole of Europe and the longer these reactors are working the greater the likelihood of total meltdown. It is therefore imperative that binding arrangements for the decommissioning of high risk reactors be agreed before accession negotiations begin. Allow me to give you just one example of the nuclear policy of an applicant country: Slovakia’s technocrats and bureaucrats promised under the Communist regime to decommission Bohunice in the year 2000. Obviously they recognised the risk. Now, no-one knows anything about any such promise. Just as past promises have not been honoured, there is a danger, if guaranteed decommissioning is not demanded in advance, that they will once again be forgotten.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001251.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001251.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the amendment tabled by the Green Group to the report on the Czech Republic’s accession to the European Union. The Czech Government’s attitude is unacceptable. At a time when there was mounting concern about the safety of putting Temelin into operation, it had declared that henceforth it intended deeds to speak louder than words. The German environment minister put his finger on the problem in a recent interview. He asked whether the Czechs want to join the EU in a community spirit or a spirit of defiance. At present, all the signs seem to indicate that defiance rather than reason is the mainspring for the Czech Government’s actions. If the Czech Republic joins the Union without the considerable safety risks of Temelin being resolved, it may well prove difficult in future to persuade other candidates for accession to take the nuclear safety requirement seriously. Furthermore, I think it is quite crucial to check whether the Beneš decrees and AVNOJ provisions, which were used to justify persecution, robbery and murder, are compatible with European Union law. We would welcome their repeal as signalling an active process of coming to terms with the past and as a step towards creating a new basis of understanding between peoples.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001252.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001252.txt','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','Making the internal market in electricity and natural gas subject to regulations applicable to the whole of Europe is a fundamentally sensible approach. The European Union’s energy supply will be a central issue over the coming years and decades, one that will be ever-present and will demand our attention. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy takes the view, and environmental considerations demand, that the primary objective of any directive dealing with the generation and supply of energy, or with trade in it or the distribution of it, should be that the primary energy used should be, and be capable of being, derived in as socially compatible a way as possible and that its ecological aspects should be acceptable. That the generation of energy is, in itself, a fundamental ecological problem, is an important insight, one that is reflected in this directive and, above all, in the rapporteur’s and draftsman’s positions and reports. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to ensure that the conditions under which electricity is produced in the medium and long term are such that the primary energy is derived exclusively from renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, sunlight and biomass. The same goes for the production of gas, where we should do everything possible to replace the old system of gas supply, with all its weaknesses, with indigenous biogas derived from non-food crops. This will work if we succeed in compensating for the present disadvantages of renewable energy sources in competition with current fossil and nuclear energy sources, and if we manage to make the production and use of energy reflect the costs involved. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001253.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001253.txt','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','My vote is intended to support the rapporteur’s efforts but prevent the proposed reduction in the monthly increments for cereals. The European Council stated clearly in its resolutions following the Berlin summit that the monthly increments should be maintained at the current 1 euro per tonne and frozen at this level for the entire period, i.e. from 2000 to 2006. The planned reduction in the monthly increments would therefore clearly be breaking our promise to the farmers. Given the worrying economic situation of the rural population, further erosion of their income is unjustifiable. The income of people working in farming has fallen by a total of nearly 10% in real terms since 1996. A reduction in the monthly increments would further exacerbate the economic situation of farmers.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001254.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001254.txt','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','Mr President, this directive is a significant step towards meeting the Kyoto objectives and a milestone on the path towards a sustainable energy sector and sustainable energy policy in the European Union. I would especially like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. However, given the shortages of resources which are becoming apparent and in view of the rise in oil and gas prices and the risks attending nuclear energy, we have no cause to sit back and congratulate ourselves on what we have achieved. Above all, we have to make it clear to the Member States of the European Union that there are economic and social advantages in achieving the targets laid down. Of course I would have preferred to have mandatory targets, but we now have to do more work convincing people to give renewable energy sources a chance in the market on a voluntary basis. Labelling of all energy sources is another long-term objective, because energy consumers have the right to know what primary energy sources their electricity is generated from.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001255.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you would think that we would all have learnt some lessons from the accident at the Chernobyl reactor. In that case, the radiation was not confined to the Ukraine, nor was it simply a bilateral problem. I know that there are both advocates and opponents of nuclear power in the European Union, and that there is no common line. And, above all, there are no uniform safety standards for nuclear power stations. There is an urgent need for action here if our credibility is to be maintained. However, after the Chernobyl experience we have to ask if it really is possible to bring a nuclear power plant, Temelín, on line in the heart of Europe when it still has significant limitations in terms of safety. The Czech Republic is trying to present us with a fait accompli in commissioning Temelín. If you will forgive my saying so, this sort of behaviour falls far short of a spirit of partnership. Edmund Stoiber was quite right when he said today that it is a matter of following the house rules. A resolution was adopted in the Austrian Parliament this Tuesday by all the parties – all the parties, mark you – emphasising that approval could only be given to the completion of the accession negotiations if the Temelín plant is retrofitted. I wish to make one thing quite clear: we support the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. But the conditions must be right. I call on you to support our motion for a resolution, the content of which is identical to the four-party resolution adopted in the Austrian Parliament. After all, it must be our objective for nuclear power stations to have the highest possible safety standards.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001256.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001256.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.','Mr President, Commissioner, following close scrutiny of this report one cannot escape the conclusion that it was possible to fulfil the stated objective of the structural policy only in part. For example, whilst the disparities between the regions have increased rather than decreased, there has been a certain amount of convergence between the Member States themselves in this respect. Equally, unemployment levels in the worst affected regions barely fell at all, indeed they rose in some cases. I wonder why it is that the structural funds are not employed more efficiently. Even the accumulation of money from the cohesion funds and the structural funds has failed to have the desired effect in all regions and countries. Since it is the declared aim of all politicians throughout Europe to reduce unemployment, then one must pose the critical question as to whether the policy employed is the right one or whether it would not be more appropriate to boost the competitiveness of the regions by appropriate measures such as increased support for research and development, improvements in infrastructure and raising the level of training. Genuine structural reforms and a competition-friendly taxation policy are the cornerstones of a successful economic base. If we do not wish to stand accused of pursuing a cost-intensive structural policy that does nothing to improve the unemployment situation in the long term, then the measures drawn up so far must be analysed. We will only be able to say that the structural policy of the Union has been a success when we manage to create a sufficient number of jobs and when there is a significant reduction in the unemployment rate.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001257.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001257.txt','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.','Mr President, the honest farmers who bear no blame for the BSE crisis are now paying the price for the Commission’s and the Union\'s misguided agricultural policies. The draft before us merely entrenches the structures which supported large-scale factory farming and production and are therefore partly to blame for the crisis. Seventy per cent of the supplementary budget is to be used to pay for the incineration campaign. It thus shores up the factory farming structures which have contributed to the crisis. We will lose all credibility with the honest and blameless European farmers if we vote for this supplementary budget. We will be sending out the wrong signal if, with this incineration campaign, we now sweep the problems of those who are partly responsible for the crisis under the carpet. So I support the rapporteur when she calls for a fundamental shift in our agricultural funding regime in favour of small-scale farming. But unlike Mrs Haug, I am not prepared to vote in favour of this supplementary budget.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001258.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001258.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I speak as an Austrian, but I also speak as a European for three reasons. First, the Transit Agreement was part of a Union promise to Austria. The promise being that the sensitive Alpine region would not be buried under an endless avalanche of transit traffic. Austrians trusted in Europe\'s word. 66% of Austrians were in favour of accession to the Union. If this Commission proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken. I speak to you as a European; this is the sort of thing which will come back to haunt us if another referendum somewhere in Europe turns out badly. Secondly, transit traffic and hence the 108% clause, which it is proposed to abolish, forms part of the Act of Accession to the European Union. In other words, the Transit Agreement is primary law. I ask you in all conscience: what is an agreement worth if the European Parliament can undermine primary law in a vote? This is also a question of principle, not just Austrian, but European principle. Thirdly, a question to all of you: what are words on paper worth? To quote the new Article 6 in the Treaty of Amsterday: \"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3\", such as the free movement of goods. Tomorrow\'s vote will be a measure of just how seriously this House takes the objective of this article in the Treaty of Amsterday. Or, ladies and gentlemen, do we just pay lip service here to environmental protection and sustainable development? The contest tomorrow is free movement of goods versus environmental protection – it is a fundamentally European question, which is why I call on you to vote in favour of the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001259.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001259.txt','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.','Mr President, naturally the blow dealt to us by the US President has affected us deeply. The worst thing would be if we were now to cast doubt on our own objectives in Europe. This must not happen. I would like to remind you that we have a great many documents, such as the White Paper on Renewable Energies, and a great many directives which we have not fully applied and implemented. The more credible we ourselves are, the stronger our arguments will be in relation to the United States. We must also try, by bypassing the US administration, to convince the American intelligentsia of the benefits, especially the obvious ecological benefits, of reducing pollution. However, there are also massive economic and social advantages. If we open up this channel of communication we have the chance to prove that our economic future also lies in implementing ecological objectives.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100126.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100126.txt','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','At the Johannesburg Summit a 15% increase in the production of alternative energy sources by 2010 was proposed. Increasing the productivity of renewables is the only long-term alternative to traditional energy sources. Research and development need to be stepped up with a view to achieving this. The positive effects flowing from this are self-evident. Research creates jobs; increased use of biofuels provides an additional product alternative for the agricultural sector; and, last but not least, negative environmental impacts are reduced. For all these reasons we have voted for the Fiori Report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001260.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001260.txt','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.','Mr President, I am similarly dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States and in my view, despite the many words of praise about the Portuguese Presidency, the absurdity of the sanctions against Austria, which Member States agreed together but are applying bilaterally, will, as a German newspaper once wrote, go down as a peculiar irony in the history of the EU and therefore unfortunately also in the history of the Portuguese Presidency. A so-called Community of values cannot end at Lake Constance. The work of the presidency will surely only be credible if the values which are to be defended are binding on all the Member States of the EU and are not employed arbitrarily and on demand as political propaganda by individual politicians against a democratically-elected government of an EU Member State.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001261.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001261.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament\'s seat and meeting place on historic ground here in Strasbourg is certainly significant. I do think, though, that this historical significance, by reason of which  this long fought-over plot was sought out in the first place, gives us another task for the future: to enable Europe\'s citizens to continue to understand what Europe is all about. Today, the man in the street asks us on various occasions why we cannot agree on a place to meet; this argument from history might well have been justified in the past, but cannot, I believe, have any validity in the future. I believe it will be far more meaningful to make clear to people our desires for the future and the decisions we take about it here. It surely cannot be that we are, at one and the same time, deciding on packages of austerity measures while spending a third of this House\'s costs on travel. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001262.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001262.txt','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.','Mr President, the Barcelona Process is a splendid idea, only strictly speaking it is 2000 years overdue. A system based on partnership with the same rights and obligations is supposed to emerge from a colonial and a post-colonial system. Seen from a historical perspective, the ruling structures were always constructed in such a way as to produce a North-South divide, and now it is only right that Europe, whose countries – or rather, certain European States from within this system – were almost always the beneficiaries, should also take responsibility for rapprochement and parity, and should promote these aspects too. The goal of the Barcelona Process is undisputed. Its success depends not only on formal negotiated outcomes, but also on the extent to which we are able to dispel the prejudices we ourselves harbour towards the Mediterranean States and their inhabitants. There can be no doubt that the realisation of the Barcelona objectives will prove decisive to a peace strategy of the twenty-first century. Equally, it is important to ensure that no Mediterranean country is excluded. Libya, the country that lies almost exactly at the heart of the Mediterranean States, goes unmentioned in the Barcelona paper. The process of rapprochement will not work unless the EU endeavours to invite Libya to take part in it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001263.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001263.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dismayed as I am about the way the 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I particularly welcome the Commission proposal. It goes without saying that the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin should be applied. There is no place for discrimination on these grounds in a modern society. However, it is possible to overshoot the mark, even in the case of such an uncontroversial issue. The reversal of the burden of proof proposed by the Commission would mean imposing an intolerable burden on small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular, as they would in future have to keep a record of every job interview, so that in serious cases they would be able to provide proof. Arrangements like this do not result in greater understanding for the victims of discrimination. Quite the opposite – it actually harms the cause. The precision of the impact assessment form annexed to the Commission proposal is totally dependent on the use of the phrase “without apparent difficulty”. The wording is as follows: “identical rules have already been applied without apparent difficulty”.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001264.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001264.txt','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.','Mr President, although affronted by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I will now take a stance on the Katiforis report. There is still a lack of optimism and also confidence in Europe, which we need if we are to think at all seriously in terms of positive economic development. The reasons for this, as far as I am concerned, are manifold. In Europe we have taxation systems that impede performance. The average level of income tax is over 50% in Europe. The very brave step taken by the Reagan administration in the 80s showed how a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation, from 70% to 28% that is, was able to stabilise the USA’s budget with lasting effect. And the tax revenue from top earners did not fall when this reduction took place, rather the reverse happened. In 1984, tax revenue from top earners actually rose from 17.6%, the level it was at in 1980, to 25.6%. We in Europe should also find the courage to introduce a low-level taxation system.  Alongside this reason, however, other significant reasons lie behind the fact that economic development in Europe is not proceeding apace. The barrage of legislation in Europe, coupled with over-complicated laws, has produced so much red tape that, in the end, it takes 11 weeks in effect to set up a company in Europe while it takes 10 days in the USA. Surveys carried out at European universities have shown that 60% of students intend to seek work in the public sector and only 40% in the private sector. We need more competition in Europe, particularly where the new technologies are concerned, so that objectives such as full employment and growth can be secured and sustained.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001265.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001265.txt','Madam President, it goes without saying that we must back the joint prosecution of tax fraud in Europe. However, the EU continues to be outsmarted by professional tax fraudsters because our systems are far too complex. We are flinging the doors open wide to such fraudsters and in so doing indirectly encouraging tax fraud. If we are to do anything effective against it, we need not only more effective controls and close cooperation, but also tax laws that are easy to understand. We urgently need a reform of our VAT system, for example. The highly complex dual VAT system where national sales are treated differently from EU sales is a major factor in billions being evaded relatively easily in the EU every year. That is why we need a simpler VAT system that is easier to understand and where all sales in Europe are treated in the same way and not differently, so that tax fraud can actually be combated effectively. Proposals have already been made to this effect we only have to implement them. I therefore propose that we at last introduce the tax card into the VAT system and treat sales the same, not differently, so as to achieve the aims we have set by actually cutting tax fraud.','Madam President, it goes without saying that we must back the joint prosecution of tax fraud in Europe. However, the EU continues to be outsmarted by professional tax fraudsters because our systems are far too complex. We are flinging the doors open wide to such fraudsters and in so doing indirectly encouraging tax fraud. If we are to do anything effective against it, we need not only more effective controls and close cooperation, but also tax laws that are easy to understand. We urgently need a reform of our VAT system, for example. The highly complex dual VAT system where national sales are treated differently from EU sales is a major factor in billions being evaded relatively easily in the EU every year. That is why we need a simpler VAT system that is easier to understand and where all sales in Europe are treated in the same way and not differently, so that tax fraud can actually be combated effectively. Proposals have already been made to this effect; we only have to implement them. I therefore propose that we at last introduce the tax card into the VAT system and treat sales the same, not differently, so as to achieve the aims we have set by actually cutting tax fraud.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001266.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001266.txt','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.','Madam President, I have championed the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the outset. And I have always advocated its being legally binding. However, that does not change the fact that I am unable to join in the predominantly euphoric appraisal of the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development. Apart from the substantive problems already raised today, merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments. I would also advise the House not to misconstrue the instrument of the convention as a deus ex machina of the European Union. Just one last word to the President-in-Office: as a former member of a supreme court, I can assure you that if the jurisdiction of various supreme courts overlaps, this will quickly give rise to diverging case law and diverging case law is only to be expected. We must not, under any circumstances, lose sight of this problem.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001267.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001267.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','Mr President, dismayed as I am about the continuing prejudgement of Austria by 14 Member States, I would like to stress that the Santa Maria da Feira Summit will be vital for the further development of the European Union. For one thing, it will determine whether the Portuguese Presidency will go down in history as the presidency which upheld the wrongful decision on the part of those 14 Member States against Austria, or, instead, as the presidency which found a way out of this unfortunate period of disregard for European solidarity and lack of respect for the democratic processes within Member States. Through the measures they have taken, the Heads of State and Government of the Fourteen have really burdened themselves with an enormous responsibility in relation both to Austria and to the Union as a whole. Over a year ago, it looked as if the disastrously low turnout in the European elections would at least have the helpful effect of initiating a fundamental debate about the structure of the European Union. Since then, things have largely returned to the normal routine. If anything, European awareness has receded even further into the distance because of the arbitrary action taken by the Fourteen against Austria. Feira should therefore give us an opportunity to bring the EU closer to the public, either by giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force, or, which would be even more meaningful, by then stating its intention to include a list of competences in the treaties. Instead, perhaps as a token gesture, and as a result of the difficulty of solving the core problems, it appears that the topic of “enhanced cooperation” is being given a higher profile. This is despite the feeling already prevailing in the last parliamentary term, and still prevalent in this Chamber now, that this could lead to a two-speed or even multi-speed Europe, so that “enhanced cooperation” will sound the death-knell of the classic European Union. In many respects, the Union is facing a parting of the ways, and the Feira Summit has a vital role to play here. The programme we have heard today does not give us cause for any great hope.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001268.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001268.txt','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','Hurricane “Lothar” should prompt us not to abide solely by the principle of undertaking repairs once the damage is done – something which is discussed at a very superficial level here –, but to switch to the precautionary principle, under the terms of which potential perpetrators are brought to book too. Current programmes must be accelerated. For example, as they stand, the Commission’s programmes will preclude us from meeting our obligations under Kyoto. The trade in emissions rights is immoral to my mind and rather than solving the problem, it shelves it. The entire taxation system must be given an environmental perspective in the medium term. We must work more rapidly towards achieving the targets stipulated in the White Paper for renewable energy sources, as this would bring about a massive reduction in greenhouse gases. The new Commission has not put forward nearly enough on this subject, and what it has put forward is woefully inadequate!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001269.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001269.txt','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim less is more. Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','Madam President, Prime Minister, Sweden has held the presidency of the Union for the first time. As an Austrian, I know that it is by no means an easy task. The objectives were ambitious. The presidency concentrated on a few priorities, in line with the maxim \"less is more\". Above all, some important progress has been made towards enlargement of the Union. Some agreement has been reached in the chapters on freedom of movement of persons and freedom to provide services, and I would like to offer my congratulations on that success. However, there is one point on which I cannot agree with the commentators in the newspapers. I do not seriously think you can say that establishing concrete data for accession is a great triumph. There are a great many questions that remain to be resolved. Following the Irish referendum, the process of ratifying the Treaty of Nice has become uncertain. The question of whether Nice is a sine qua non for enlargement has been the subject of some debate. But the people of Ireland have given a clear signal that the debate on the future of the Union can no longer be conducted behind closed doors and over the heads of our citizens; the public has to be directly involved. One objective of the Göteborg Summit was to work out a strategy for sustainable development. I see the Council\'s commitment to shift transport to rail and to encourage the full internalisation of external costs as an important clarification of this. The Community will soon have a chance to match its words with deeds. The forthcoming negotiations regarding the expiry of the transit agreement with Austria will provide a good opportunity in this respect.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100127.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100127.txt','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','Mr President, twelve years have passed since Rio, where it was recognised that greenhouse gases have to be reduced around the world, which shows how interminably slowly global processes of change in relation to the environment take place. It is costs that are the main point under discussion. It must, though, become widely accepted that every measure taken today is the cause of only a fraction of the cost of future consequential damage, which has to be paid for later. That is what we have experienced in recent days in Central Europe, with the greatest flood disaster known to history. The water has now gone, but the causes remain, and so we have to take action against them, primarily locally but also globally. It is generally recognised that the most important step is the radical reduction in all greenhouse gases. Mr Moreira Da Silva\'s Report points in the right direction, and does so excellently. We need a long-term perspective that also involves our belief that real improvement can be achieved. We have been relieved to learn in recent weeks that, for example, the ban on hydrofluorocarbons has resulted, after only a few years, in the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic being reduced in size for the first time. Emissions trading in itself does not yet reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but simply divides them up in a different way. An effective campaign must start at our own front door. To do this, we must first of all develop renewable sources of energy and press on towards the energy efficiency goals that we have set ourselves. The long-term view can only be that the polluter-pays principle should be applied and that the revenues thus accrued should be earmarked for specific purposes and used to improve the situation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001270.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001270.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has set itself the ambitious target of achieving full employment in Europe by 2010. However, the Council should be clear on one thing: jobs can only be created if economic reforms are implemented consistently. What was begun in Lisbon and announced in Nice was not continued in Stockholm. In Stockholm, the brakes were applied. In this sense, the lack of agreement on Community patents is disappointing. The absence of a European patent is a powerful brake on the European economy, as has been confirmed in numerous talks with American researchers. If we want a Europe which promotes private commitment, risk taking and entrepreneurship, then these long overdue liberalisation measures must be taken. Competition-distorting aid must be prevented as and where possible and an internal market for services must at last become a reality.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001271.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001271.txt','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','Before I begin I will take the liberty of expressing my consternation at the way in which Austria has been prejudged by 14 Council representatives. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds the Community initiatives are being pruned to a total of four. I welcome the continuation of INTERREG and the priority which it has been accorded. However, the delayed presentation of the draft guidelines has caused a number of problems. The regions have not been sufficiently involved in the preparation of the guidelines, although this demand was often made in the debate about the reform of the Structural Funds. There is no direct transition between INTERREG II and III, the practical consequences of which are uncertainty in terms of planning and gaps in funding. That is a shame because it threatens perfectly sensible projects. When INTERREG is implemented, it will need to be coordinated and synchronised with the other financial instruments concerned. This is particularly important in order to increase the efficiency of the funds deployed. However, problems will arise in particular from the fact that under PHARE, for example, funds are managed on an annual basis and allocation of appropriations is project-related, whereas INTERREG funds are multiannual and are allocated on a measures-related basis. This will cause practical problems in the future, and I hope that despite this it will be possible to implement INTERREG effectively.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001272.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001272.txt','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.','Mr President, it stands to reason that we are meant to protect consumers from unfair business practices, as that is how we create a climate of confidence, but, in doing this, we must not overshoot the mark by protecting consumers from themselves and declaring them to be incapable of managing their own affairs. The Consumer Credit Directive is one example of this. With that in mind, we should be supporting all measures that have the effect of promoting sales and the fulfilment of the internal market. Under no circumstances must businesses be tangled up in more red tape, as it is above all small and medium-sized enterprises that are handicapped by it. We must make it our objective to create more confidence while, at the same time, avoiding increased bureaucracy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001273.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001273.txt','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.','Madam President, you have to consider two things where natural gas is concerned. The first is availability and the second is price. In my opinion, we are right to take Article 100 as the basis now, even if Mr Blokland is right in saying we will have to take a very broad interpretation of it. Whenever security of supply is discussed, there is always the temptation really to mean that it is an opportunity to introduce indirect price controls. I believe that on the whole we will fail in that, because it will not work and the perspective taken is far too short-term. Basically, we must not forget, either, that gas is dependent on price, which is in turn tied to the price of oil, and that we may perhaps be greatly deceiving ourselves about its availability. The best form of security of supply is surely to have our own supplies, and we must therefore welcome the fact that work is gradually being done (a) to produce high-quality gas ourselves inside the European Union and (b) to feed that gas into our own available networks.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001274.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001274.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are those who assert that Europe’s governments are steadily dismembering the compromise that the Convention laboriously put together on the constitution, others maintain the legitimacy of their modifying the Convention’s draft. For those who were there at Amsterdam and Nice, the Brussels summit is all about déjà vu . There is, in any case, no denying the fact that representatives of the national parliaments had a hand in the consensus that the Convent painstakingly hammered out. The signals sent out from Brussels put me in a thoughtful frame of mind. Europe’s governments may well not have made any headway, but they affirm that they are heading in the right direction. The German Federal Chancellor, Mr Schröder, allows the French President Chirac to represent him. In Europe, we know that nothing can be done without Paris and Berlin, but was it really necessary to put on such a show of strength to deliver a rebuff to all those who warn of a Franco-German directorate? Finally, there is the growth initiative, with a lot of paper and no action ever since the Essen resolution – as long ago, let me emphasise, as 1994. What this means is that a Quick Start programme is to be put together in time for the December summit, listing the TEN projects that are to be completed. It leaves open the question as to how much money the EU will be chipping in towards the TEN projects, as too, though, is the question of whether the Stability Pact supplants the Growth Pact or vice versa. I would have thought that growth is impossible without stability, for, at the end of the day, today’s debts are tomorrow’s taxes. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001275.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001275.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation, following the failure of the summit in Brussels, is rather laughable. In the constitutional debate, France and Germany hold forth about the need to move Europe forward, but they are the very ones who have persistently ignored the common ground rules. The effects of such behaviour are, in my opinion, fatal. When Jacques Chirac speaks of an advance guard and outlines the notion of a two-speed Europe, that in itself is not the end of the world. The Schengen Agreement and the euro have already established the principle of differing speeds. The real tragedy is that friction has been generated. This will not help Europe to move forward. The prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty have not become any brighter. The negotiations on the EU budget may well pose the threat of some sort of linkage between the constitution and the financial framework. I can only recommend vigilance. The substance of the draft Constitutional Treaty is a mixture of good ideas that would bring progress and, alas, questionable features such as pre-programmed conflicts of authority, which are destined to occur, for example, in the field of foreign policy between the future EU Foreign Minister and the President of the Council. It is high time that the EU prepared itself for a larger Community. It smacks of absolutism, in my view, to proscribe the discussion of constitutional matters by the Heads of State or Government. I refuse to treat these Heads of Government as if they were the insurgent rebels of Europe. At the same time, these leaders must not be allowed to forget that they sent representatives to the Convention. I appeal for political pragmatism; what has been achieved must be safeguarded.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001276.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001276.txt','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','Mr President, although I voted for the report, I would like the following point to be minuted. Coordination of European research activity must not result in competition between research institutes disappearing. The limits on communitarisation imposed by the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be kept in mind. The standardisation of rights concerning intangible assets has already proved its value in the case of trademark law and copyright. The present system for filing patent applications obliges the applicant to file a patent application separately in each Member State, which inevitably results in an undesirable fragmentation of the European market. The logical conclusion is therefore to create a Community patent. Decision makers at national level will have to be sufficiently far-sighted if this ambitious project is to succeed. The competitiveness of the entire European Union must be taken into account when research contracts are being awarded.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001277.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001277.txt','Mr President, this is actually the third oil crisis we have had, but it contrasts sharply with the other two. They were political crises of man-made origin, and they came about in 1973 and 1979 with the fall of the Shah regime. For fifteen years now there have clear indications and studies – for example, Global 2000, the report compiled for Jimmy Carter – to the effect that there would be a real shortage in raw materials by the turn of the century. In other words, the third oil crisis we are experiencing now, is here to stay. Whether the price drops again in the short term is of no consequence because there will be a steady upward trend in the long term. It even says in Colin Campbell’s study – anyone interested in having a copy can get one from me – that there will be a shortage of raw materials, i.e. oil, in the early years of the 21st century, the reason being that the production curve has passed its peak. I therefore believe that even demonstrations are onto a loser, because you can only squeeze so much juice from a lemon. We will still have oil, but it will not come cheap. In other words, the price of oil will rise to between USD 40 and 60 in the future. There are enough studies to this effect. Even if they should prove to be wrong, now is the time to consider and analyse them. Nor is it an OPEC crisis, because only 40% of the oil produced comes from OPEC countries the remaining 60% comes from non-OPEC countries. If this was just a man-made crisis, the other oil producers could redress the balance.','Mr President, this is actually the third oil crisis we have had, but it contrasts sharply with the other two. They were political crises of man-made origin, and they came about in 1973 and 1979 with the fall of the Shah regime. For fifteen years now there have clear indications and studies – for example, Global 2000, the report compiled for Jimmy Carter – to the effect that there would be a real shortage in raw materials by the turn of the century. In other words, the third oil crisis we are experiencing now, is here to stay. Whether the price drops again in the short term is of no consequence because there will be a steady upward trend in the long term. It even says in Colin Campbell’s study – anyone interested in having a copy can get one from me – that there will be a shortage of raw materials, i.e. oil, in the early years of the 21st century, the reason being that the production curve has passed its peak. I therefore believe that even demonstrations are onto a loser, because you can only squeeze so much juice from a lemon. We will still have oil, but it will not come cheap. In other words, the price of oil will rise to between USD 40 and 60 in the future. There are enough studies to this effect. Even if they should prove to be wrong, now is the time to consider and analyse them. Nor is it an OPEC crisis, because only 40% of the oil produced comes from OPEC countries; the remaining 60% comes from non-OPEC countries. If this was just a man-made crisis, the other oil producers could redress the balance.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001278.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001278.txt','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','Mr President, I do not believe Parliament should feel satisfied with what has been achieved so far. In discharging the Commission, it runs the risk of losing credibility in the field of budgetary control and combating fraud. Nor am I sure whether people in this House actually realise that giving a discharge means accepting liability for damages. It will be hard to explain to the citizens of Europe why EUR 14 million of taxes were squandered on the Fléchard case and why Parliament is letting itself be fobbed off with empty promises. So everyone in this House who voted for the discharge to the Commission is assuming quite personal responsibility for it. We need hardly wonder why the citizens are increasingly losing faith in Europe. On behalf of my group, I therefore want to state that we voted against the discharge to the Commission for that reason.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001279.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001279.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency secondly, high administrative expenditure thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us clearly shows that, now as ever, the management of structural policy is deficient in various respects and, above all, that there is much room for improvement in it. I have been carefully reading these reports for years, and the catalogue of defects is always basically the same. Admittedly, an attempt was made to simplify regional policy under Agenda 2000, yet I still have criticisms of four key areas: first, a lack of efficiency; secondly, high administrative expenditure; thirdly, high liability to fraud and fourthly, a lack of evaluation. I am committed to the fundamental European concept of solidarity. It is also in the interests of the prosperous States to bring the poorer ones up to the Community level. Despite that belief, I call for a far-reaching reform of the EU\'s regional policy, without critical examination of which the future of the enlarged EU, especially as regards its post-2006 financial arrangements, will be uncertain. Do not misunderstand me: enlargement will cost a fair bit and people have to be told that. How sensible is it, though, in reality, for the Commission, for example, on the one hand, to propose cuts in the CAP to the candidates for enlargement and, on the other hand, to make available more extensive structural aid by way of compensation? These Structural Funds can only be used to their fullest extent if the applicant countries take on board the fact that their budgets are going to incur new debts. Has the Commission really thought this through?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100128.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100128.txt','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.','– ( DE )  Mr President, I think we are agreed that water will be a key issue in the European Union this century. We can also be sure that we are far from paying the subject the attention it deserves. Of course it would be an illusion to think we can solve water problems by pumping water from areas of supposed surplus to areas where there is a shortage. If we are saying that parts of Europe sometimes have floods and that the water could perhaps be more fairly distributed, we must bear in mind that those floods are themselves the outcome of mistakes in water management. It is high time far greater attention was paid to local and regional water management. Water problems must, as a rule, be solved where they arise, and there they must be dealt with within an acceptable financial framework. The neglect of one potential source of water has been criminal: the conversion of salt water into industrial and process water. The prospects in this sector are tremendous. Complete liberalisation of water will result in it being used by industry in a way that will bring enormous ecological problems in the long term. We must stop that before it happens.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001280.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001280.txt','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','Mr President, although the content of Amendment No 6 represents an improvement on the original Beneš compromise, it does not take account of the requirement in respect of the amnesty law before the accession of the Czech Republic. This law has no place in a European Community of values that calls for the protection of basic rights. We have therefore rejected this amendment. A newly reunited Europe cannot legitimise collective expulsion. Recital O in the report gives an important signal here and therefore has our unqualified support. Even if paragraphs 46 and 47 are basically welcome, what is missing from the report are specific demands in relation to the serious safety problems with the Temelin nuclear power station and the possible decommissioning of the station. We were able to support all the amendments and points concerning the closure of nuclear power stations that cannot be retrofitted and we support the highest possible level of nuclear safety. Whilst the report is deficient in more binding proposals as regards the Beneš decrees and the Temelin nuclear power station, it comes out clearly in many places against fraud, corruption and discrimination. We are very much in favour of specific demands for these problems to be overcome in advance of accession. With regard to Turkey, my group is in favour of the recommendation in Amendment No 7 for the creation of a special partnership between the EU and Turkey. We believe that it cannot be in the interest of Europe as a whole to allow Turkey to join the EU. On the other hand, delaying tactics holding out the prospect of the start of membership negotiations should be fiercely opposed. In conclusion I would like to say that we stand by the common European peace project and the historical need for future enlargement. However, as the quality of the enlargement process is and will continue to be very important, my group abstained during the final vote.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001281.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001281.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by apologising for the fact that our Austrian Finance Minister was unable, during the previous election period, to achieve the targets set by the Council in March 1998. However, it is very clear from this report that other Member States besides Austria failed to adhere to all aspects of the Council regulation in question. Our current Finance Minister, Mr Grasser, had to work under pressure of time when compiling Budget 2000, and it is this budget that fulfilled significant criteria of the Council regulation, the measures pertaining to pensions for example. The Member States’ efforts to overhaul their budgets will only prove successful if there is a clear reduction in the taxation and social contribution burden within the EU.  It was, and still is, a serious mistake to maintain that high taxation and social contribution levels guarantee high tax receipts at the same time. The opposite is true. Japan and the USA are living proof of the fact that countries with low rates of taxation can be successful. The tax burden in the USA averages 30%, as compared with 46% in the Union, and the USA has a budget surplus in excess of USD 250 billion at present.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001282.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001282.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I did not vote for the amendments to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the financing of political parties; not because I am not in agreement with all this, but because it is the logical consequence of the fact that back in June last year my colleagues and I voted against the Leinen report. Implementing the regulation in this way amounts to discrimination against the smaller party groupings in this House, which although they are active at European level nevertheless are not represented in any group. Financial support is given to large party groupings but not to smaller ones, thus creating a huge gap in terms of democratic deficit between these two kinds of grouping. We all know that parties and their organisations are dependent on financial contributions. This creates an uneven playing field between the parties at European level, and I cannot vote for that.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001283.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001283.txt','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is the fourth daughter directive to the Air Quality Framework Directive, which already has three adopted daughters, the first on sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lead, the second on benzene and carbon monoxide and the third on ozone. In the first two cases, limit values were sought and were duly enshrined in the directives. The so-called mother directive, in other words the overarching framework legislation, also calls for limit values in respect of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This is the basic requirement. In the case of ozone, the framework directive only provides for a target value, and the third daughter directive set the target accordingly. In the present discussion on this fourth daughter directive, there are three positions: the Commission has adopted the position that monitoring is enough and sets a proposed target value for benzopyrenes. This, in my view, is contrary to the framework directive, and I know of earlier Commission drafts in which limit values were set. The Commission, then, has already deliberated on this point. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy voted by a very narrow majority of 26 to 24 for limit values. These limits did not come from me, because I was pretty poor at chemistry in my schooldays, but from experts from the Commission, international experts and a committee of people with a sound scientific grounding. In short, these limit values are feasible from the Commission’s point of view, which, in this case, we have endorsed. There are very many indications from industry too that these target and limit values can be achieved. We also voted in the Committee on the Environment for the omission of the original requirement for a time limit for industrial areas where these values are difficult to achieve. In other words, we were very responsive to the needs of industry, telling them that, where damage had been done to their environment in the past, where there was a history of pollution, they were not actually expected to achieve the targets within a very short period. In addition, the Committee on the Environment commissioned a study from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The study likewise confirms the feasibility of limit values. The third position is that of the Council, with which we have already conducted preliminary negotiations and maintained contacts and dialogue. In the view of the Council, or a potential majority of the Council, target values are also conceivable. This point will undoubtedly be the focus of future discussions too. We certainly must be clearly aware of the significance of these heavy metals. They are genotoxic human carcinogens, which, even in minimal doses, effect a change in DNA – in people’s genetic make-up. There is definitely a need to appreciate fully what is at stake here. The line of argument adopted in the Commission document, namely that it is all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, of weighing the cost of filters or technical measures against potential savings from a reduction in the number of people dying from cancer, is, to my mind, extremely cynical. The second step, namely an assessment of the secondary benefits in terms of a lower incidence of disease, has not been taken at all, because such benefits are difficult to quantify. Such a cynical line of argument will not wash with the bulk of the European population. We have postponed tomorrow’s vote with the intention of trying to reach an agreement with the Council before the end of the present legislative term. I am pleased that the Commissioner shares my view that we can perhaps use these remaining weeks to reach a compromise that will ultimately enable us to look one another straight in the eye.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001284.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001284.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ban on any form of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products in Directive 89/552 and the more stringent labelling requirements for tobacco products introduced in this directive illustrate the ambivalent attitude of the European Union towards tobacco. On the one hand, tobacco crops are subsidised to the tune of over EUR 1 billion a year; on the other hand, we are trying to reduce the consumption of tobacco in the Union as much as possible. This dilemma must be resolved in the interests of the credibility of Community policy. The European Union must set itself the task of pursuing policies which our citizens can understand. There is an irresolvable contradiction between the promotion of tobacco cultivation, on the one hand, and the advertising ban, on the other. If this contradiction cannot be resolved at Community level, then the Union must fight to help attain a high level of health protection by supporting a reduction in tobacco cultivation at international level.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001285.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001285.txt','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','Mr President, personally I am pleased that following the lifting of the sanctions within the Union normal relations have been resumed, apart perhaps from a few minor exceptions which are not worth bothering with. I can therefore attend to the subject of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a glad heart. People\'s opinions may well differ on the text which has been drafted. They might judge it to be satisfactory or less satisfactory; they might also consider it – compared with the huge effort involved – to be rather wanting. But they can make one objective statement: the actual aim will not be achieved for as long as this Charter is not accorded legally binding status. Until then it will in fact do nothing more than pay lip service to these ideals. Whether, incidentally, another Convention would be a suitable way of addressing the considerably more complex issue of a European constitution remains to be seen. The involvement of the national parliaments is obviously to be welcomed. Personally, however, I think it is doubtful whether a reasonable result can be achieved on this difficult issue working from such a broad basis. As far as Biarritz is concerned, I should like to point out that it is not far from there to Nice, but neither – more importantly – is it very long now. The question of whether the Member States will be able to agree on a new treaty in Nice is still completely open. The attitude of the French Presidency – that they would rather have no treaty at all than a bad one – is sensible in my opinion. However, people\'s views on what makes a good or bad treaty are still miles apart. In addition, the French Presidency is not escaping criticism from leading European diplomats because of the way in which it is conducting the negotiations. But it is precisely the conduct of this French Presidency which will determine whether especially the smaller Member States take the impression with them from the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference that less value is attached to their reservations and positions than to those of the large Member States.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001286.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001286.txt','Madam President, Europe has a special historical responsibility for the peace process in the Middle East. This means proceeding with great sensitivity and not taking a schoolmasterly line or apportioning blame to one side alone. The fact that the Foreign Minister himself responded to the last peace negotiations by stepping down, serves as a reminder to us that above all in Israel, which is the stable democracy in the region, every step taken by the politicians must have the backing of the majority of the Israeli people. Nevertheless, we would do well not to forget that for all the fine words uttered, the crucial negotiations for peace in the Middle East take place in the USA and not in Europe. Perhaps those EU politicians whose brief it is, have so far been unable to find the right way to act as genuinely neutral and productive mediators in this conflict.','Madam President, Europe has a special historical responsibility for the peace process in the Middle East. This means proceeding with great sensitivity and not taking a schoolmasterly line or apportioning blame to one side alone. The fact that the Foreign Minister himself responded to the last peace negotiations by stepping down, serves as a reminder to us that above all in Israel, which is the stable democracy in the region, every step taken by the politicians must have the backing of the majority of the Israeli people. Nevertheless, we would do well not to forget that for all the fine words uttered, the crucial negotiations for peace in the Middle East take place in the USA and not in Europe. Perhaps those EU politicians whose brief it is, have so far been unable to find the right way to act as genuinely neutral and productive mediators in this conflict.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001287.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001287.txt','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','Mr President, whilst it is self-evidently legitimate to criticise Belarus\' political system, the same criticisms can be levelled at the other states of the former Soviet Union, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there are also highly favourable indicators in Belarus. By this I mean the Sakharov University in Minsk, whose work in relation to the environment may be regarded as pointing a way for others to follow. The European Union should support more reform movements of this sort, which, in the long term, will make the country more democratic. Last year, I gained a very strong impression that living conditions had improved in comparison to what they had been in previous years, although a short visit to a country cannot give you the complete picture. One cannot, unfortunately, sound the all-clear as regards the consequences of Chernobyl. Vast numbers of people are still dying in der Gomel region. Lack of funding prevents people over the age of 45 being treated. The international community must give more attention to this problem and, above all, provide more material assistance.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001288.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001288.txt','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','Mr President, dismayed as I am by the fact that 14 Member States have prejudged Austria, I regard the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights as an opportunity to bring the European Union closer to the people. I therefore welcome it. In drawing up this Charter, the Union wishes to demonstrate its respect for the rights of the people and to show that it cares about the welfare of the individual. At the same time, however, the impression has been created in the public arena that the European Union does not even respect the fundamental right – as it were – of an individual State to form a government with sovereign power. Likewise, the impression has been created that 14 Member States have failed to play by the rules they themselves adopted, and have violated their obligations towards solidarity. I would ask you this: how is a Union of the Member States that adopts sanctions out of prejudice, without giving the parties concerned a fair hearing and with no legal basis, to satisfy people that it intends to do more than just pay lip-service to fundamental rights? The decision taken by the 14 has done great damage to the perception that the citizens of the European Union have of Europe. And I believe it is very doubtful indeed as to whether this damage can be made good by a Charter of Fundamental Rights.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001289.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001289.txt','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','Mr President, the report contains important conditions for future candidate countries, thereby granting human rights problems the same status as economic conditions. We particularly welcome the fact that the problem of religious freedom was mentioned, as some countries, especially the Czech Republic, have already passed very restrictive laws against religious minorities. The passage on the human rights situation within the EU is also interesting and gives the EU no cause whatsoever to take the moral high ground vis-à-vis new candidate countries. We Austrians now find ourselves in a situation, ostensibly in order to safeguard human rights, in which we no longer know whether to laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, taxi drivers in Brussels were refusing to take Austrian passengers. Austrians were thrown out of hotels and restaurants in Belgium and France. Our assistants’ French teachers declared that they no longer wished to teach Nazis and school exchange programmes were cancelled. Austrians working abroad had their cars vandalised, stones thrown at their houses and their children were threatened at school. Today it was revealed that the Austrian entrant in a show jumping competition in Grenoble had his invitation withdrawn. The town council in Grenoble held lengthy discussions on whether or not the horse was welcome but, in the end, its invitation was also withdrawn as it had not expressly distanced itself from the Austrian government. Perhaps we shall soon see Mozart banned from international opera houses. Who knows where it will all end. Whoever takes political responsibility for this anti-fascist Punch and Judy show here in the House and in the EU countries in question has cause to be proud. I can assure the previous speakers, who call me Satan’s sidekick, that I am not hiding a cloven hoof beneath the benches. If this irrational collective hatred against an entire nation can be so readily called upon in the EU, we are a long way from being in a position to dictate to other countries. If only all these good people who take the floor here had lived sixty or more years ago, just think what Europe could have spared itself.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100129.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100129.txt','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','Mr President, Mr Schwaiger, I would like to thank your for dealing with this complex matter so thoroughly and for seeking to forge a path towards a broad consensus. It makes no sense in this WTO Round to negotiate according to the motto “I might not know where I’m going, but I’ll be the first to get there!”. It is about citizens profiting in the long term from the globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is therefore a personal concern of mine that the outcome of the negotiations should be understood and accepted by the people. In Europe today we have extremely high standards, both with regard to environmental and consumer protection and to social protection of workers. During the course of the forthcoming negotiations, these must not be dismantled, nor undermined. Our trade partners must be persuaded of the importance of these matters. I support the call to apply the precautionary principle and sustainability in all sectors. In the agricultural sector specifically, the results of Berlin must be the absolute lower limit in the negotiations since the situation of small rural family enterprises and of farmers in difficult geographical areas should not be disregarded. In the matter of social standards we cannot afford any shipwreck. I am therefore pragmatic. I am concerned that in reality the contents of the 1998 ILO Conference will crop up. We should not make the mistake of alarming our negotiating partners with such massive demands. I therefore advocate the institutionalisation of the cooperation of the WTO and the ILO. Liberalisation has clearly had positive effects. However, it cannot be the case that at the end of the day the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! In this negotiating round Europe must truly speak with a single voice if we wish to assert ourselves against the USA. However, this voice must not just be the position of the powerful or of a few globalisation fanatics, but must represent the interests of the small and medium-sized companies which form the backbone of our economic strength.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001290.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001290.txt','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','Mr President, Mr Beysen has tabled an excellent, forward-looking report which takes account of important basic documents such as the White Paper on renewable sources of energy, the directive on the internal market in electricity and the directive promoting electricity from renewable sources of energy. We particularly welcome the proposed amendments calling for fair network access for electricity companies using renewable energy sources. Of course, in the long term, we also expect the Commission to internalise external costs, which need to be broken down in the case of fossil and atomic energy production. At present, we are probably all taking far too little account of future problems with security of supply and underestimating the expected cost increases in the primary energy sector in general. In this sense, we welcome the proposed amendments tabled by Claude Turmes, while Mr Beysen is to be congratulated on having pushed so forcefully for the inclusion of wind energy.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001291.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001291.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the members of the liberal professions – tax accountants, lawyers and notaries – are aware of the risk which money laundering poses to the social, financial and economic stability of a country and condemn any professional colleague who wittingly takes part in his client’s criminal activities. And yet, they are all opposed to the Council’s proposal and welcome Parliament’s proposal. Our task, and here I mean tax accountants, and this includes me, is not to spy on our clients and, where necessary, to report them; on the contrary, our task is to advise our clients on the basis of the law and provide up-front explanations which will stop them from breaking the law. However, we shall be stripped of this explanatory function if the Council proposal is accepted and clients have to worry that, in future, we shall report information given in confidence. The citizens’ right to confidential advice is one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and must remain sacrosanct.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001292.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001292.txt','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','Tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe. It is to be hoped that this package of measures will mark a further step towards realising a European form of tourism that respects the environment and conserves resources.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001293.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001293.txt','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.','We Independents are in favour of transparent and efficient budget planning and supervision. With regard to the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99, we expressly emphasise that we shall judge the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 1/99 and 3/99 positively and also support it. In the Supplementary and Amending Budget for 4/99, a considerable reduction in the resources for agricultural expenditure is specified. This reduction in authorised payments and in other financial commitments increases the burden upon farms which are in great difficulty as it is. For the reason mentioned, we cannot approve the entire Supplementary and Amending Budget.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001294.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001294.txt','Mr President, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.','Mr President, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001295.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001295.txt','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','Mr President, it is clear that the costs of enlargement are at the present moment difficult to estimate, but it must also be clear to us that they must not, in future, be allowed to exceed their limits. The economic data for our EU as regards employment and economic growth are not particularly good, and, in addition, the fiscal burden in Europe, which is to be borne by the citizen, has reached an all-time high of 46%. Put in clear terms, this means that the Member States will have to manage without tax revenues from 2003 until 2008, as prevailing tax rates are too high and must be reduced absolutely. That is also what we in this House have committed ourselves to. At the same time, the Member States\' budgets will not be able to cope with any additional burdens, the payment of higher contributions being one example. The EU\'s citizens will not accept higher tax burdens. If we decide on them all the same, the political landscape of the EU is likely to change in the future and probably not to Europe\'s advantage. It is highly likely that, at the next elections, the voters will tell us what they think about it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001296.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001296.txt','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.','Mr President, I would like to do something that I rarely do for reasons of time, and congratulate Mr Pirker on his well balanced report, although I believe that he is at present not in the Chamber. Social integration of economic migrants in the Member States is, as he stressed, absolutely essential if we are to avoid social tensions. And a greater degree of contact between immigrants and the indigenous population will perhaps also help us to recognise ‘sleepers’ and so help to fight terrorism. I also believe that in view of all the measures proposed it is important to give the Member States the option of fine-tuning the entry and residence of third country nationals in accordance with the requirements of their own labour markets and demographic trends, because these questions in particular can only be dealt with at local level. It will also be important to take into account the imminent enlargement of the EU when planning immigration policy. The rapporteur took all this into consideration. I wish his report every success, and we will certainly be supporting it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001297.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001297.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the summit was – as has been frequently stated today – held under the shadow of the attacks in Madrid. It is a positive signal that an antiterrorism coordinator has been appointed and the solidarity clause from the draft Constitution has been brought forward. These are signs of the necessary European collaboration, which can be entered on the credit side of the account. However – hand on heart – the knowledge that police and security services must cooperate and that the results of investigations must be exchanged across borders is not new. Since the attacks of September 11 there has been a lot of talking but not much action. Europe moves slowly, as Robert Schuman once said. How true! The Lisbon strategy of 2000 has the ambitious objective of making the EU the strongest economic area in the world. We are still waiting for the results. In Laeken, the starting gun was fired for a Constitution, but Poland and Spain, and also France and Germany, have not played a distinguished role at the Brussels Summit. Is the end of the blockade in sight? Hopes for this are not unjustified. The Irish presidency has so far done good work. Nevertheless, I am realistic and I see that many chapters in the draft Constitution are still controversial: the question of how many Commissioners there should be for each country, the principle of rotation, the weighting of the votes. There is no questioning the fact, though, that the enlarged Community must be able to take action – at least in terms of lip-service. I hope that actions will follow!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001298.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001298.txt','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.','Madam President, may I begin by welcoming the highly ambitious programme of the Swedish Presidency. A great deal has already been said and written about the follow-up to Nice. I was delighted just now to hear many of my own thoughts voiced here today. But there is another aspect of all this which I should like to highlight today. During the course of the first debate on the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro working paper in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, one of the requests made was for the historical introduction in the first part of the report to be angled not from the point of view of the Council’s victories or the Commission’s victories, but from the point of view of Parliament’s defeats. I can understand, with the impression made by Nice and the power games played out there, why one side or the other is tempted to resort to aggressive or belligerent words. Surely there can be no victory or defeat for one institution over another; surely there can only be progress or retrogression with regard to the overall concept, i.e. the concept of Europe, and we should not lose sight of that. I therefore feel that, as parliamentarians, we should stop using this sort of vocabulary; avoiding it will send out a message of cooperation between the institutions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001299.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001299.txt','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!','Mr President, I should also like to applaud the rapporteurs in particular because they did not give way to the temptation, perhaps even the pressure from a largish number of parliamentarians, to demonise the outcome of Nice as a knee-jerk reaction, but rather endeavoured to make an objective critique. Almost everything has already been said about Nice. I should like, however, to take up one thing that Mr Poettering touched upon but did not really emphasise. I consider the call for the Intergovernmental Conference proposed in Nice for 2004 to be brought forward to 2003 to be mistaken. The arguments put forward for that are not convincing. For one thing we also have important elections in Europe in 2003. Secondly – and there is extensive agreement about this despite differing ideas about the run-up to it – the next Intergovernmental Conference is to be of short duration. It can therefore easily be accommodated after the elections to the European Parliament. Above all, however, the best way to meet the desire for a broadly-based discussion about the future of the Union would be to make it a subject of the election campaign. Bringing the meeting forward looks like evading the electorate and the electorate will see it that way. Be warned!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10013.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10013.txt','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','Mr President, among the four Post-Nice topics, I consider the role of the national parliaments particularly important because it can prepare a way into the hearts of Europe\'s citizens. When important speeches are made to this House – even when they are made to better-attended sittings than this one – I often regret the fact that they do not evoke the interest they deserve on the part of the public, and that we tend to be talking to each other. What matters, though, is that we should evoke this interest, and, moreover, give the EU democratic legitimacy. We will only succeed in this, though, if we can get the public to understand that what is happening in Europe is not just any old thing, but that their future is affected, in real terms, by whether those to whom they have given a mandate can share in decisions about the future and whether their national parliaments can resist it when the EU oversteps the bounds of its competence. This report could play an essential part in bringing this about. Let me congratulate the rapporteur and, therefore, express my support for him.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100130.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100130.txt','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','Mr President, the second report of the Committee of Wise Men is an important contribution, while not containing too many big surprises. It deals in the main almost inevitably with the reform proposals which we today regard as being necessary. Of course, I cannot go into detail on all the recommendations contained in the report, but I would like to concentrate on one problem, namely that of individual responsibility. When the Wise Men’s report, which expressly does not draw a distinction between administrative and political responsibility, calls, inter alia, for the Commission President to have the authority to dismiss individual Commission members, then, to my mind this requirement does not do justice to the gentlemen’s agreement between President Prodi and the Commissioners-designate. In any case, as called for in the report, what is required is a relevant contractual regulation designed to provide a firm basis for a form of individual responsibility which is legally enforceable in serious cases. The agreement can only be a transitional regulation. No one has so far been able to explain to me, and the report in question has not helped in this regard either, how those Commissioners who are standing again have contributed to exclusive collective responsibility, something which has been criticised by us but which is legally stipulated. In view of this de facto rejected responsibility, it is now difficult however to take the explanations of the Commissioners seriously, i.e. that they would in future resign if requested to do so by the Commission President. With good reason, the report additionally calls for the Commissioners to be directly responsible to Parliament, but the gentlemen’s agreement also brings with it the danger that if we trust it, we could prevent ourselves from actually taking the necessary radical steps. That should certainly not be allowed to happen. I consider it absolutely necessary that the recommendations in this regard from the Committee of Wise Men be included in the programme for the next Intergovernmental Conference and be legally transposed, in spite of the explanations given by the designated Commissioners. That should be a considerable pillar for effective cooperation between the institutions from the point of view of citizens’ interests.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001300.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001300.txt','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','Mr President, the reconstruction in Kosovo is without a doubt one of the most urgent tasks, but also responsibilities, of the European Union. According to the latest reports from the UN, Kosovo is today a completely devastated country in which neither people’s security is guaranteed nor the population’s nutritional needs provided for. However, the European Union’s responsibility must this time involve more than merely financing the reconstruction. The reinstatement of a democratically just system is a prerequisite for any reconstruction programme, and the EU bears political, just as much as social and economic, responsibility. As the negative examples from Russia have shown in recent weeks, billions of dollars in aid often reach only a fraction of the people who are really affected by a crisis. The flow of cash must therefore be transparent. We must all be given a guarantee that Europeans’ tax payments do not trickle away into the accounts of so many political and economic criminals. The European Union is alone responsible for ensuring that this money is not misused. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility towards our electors who are financing this reconstruction with their tax money. We depend upon a positive opinion in the population and it is therefore a basic responsibility of the European Union to be able also to explain to those who are helping to finance the reconstruction how the money is being used. For this, the European Union this time needs a modern, efficient, rationally managed and also transparent form of conflict management. Only under these conditions can we count upon broad support for this project from the European population.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001301.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001301.txt','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.','The deficiencies of current agricultural policy are evident. The existing system only serves to promote the transport of animals. This trade is, at least in part, truly absurd. For example, Spain imports sheep for slaughter from the United Kingdom, while at the same time exporting sheep to be slaughtered in Greece. We must aim to abolish the promotion of the transport of live animals. It is indefensible in the long term that EU funds are used for this purpose. The only possibility of putting an end to the long-distance transport of livestock lies in the regionalisation of agriculture policy. The watchword must be: production in the market, for the market. This would also make it possible to effectively counteract the spread of diseases.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001302.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001302.txt','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','Mr President, the fact that only one of the 50 poorest countries, namely Botswana, has managed to get out of the poverty trap over the last 25 years proves that the basic system is flawed. Providing ostensibly social aid and even slashing these countries’ debts are only cosmetic measures with no long-term effects. Multinational groups have established a system of exploitation against these countries in collaboration with former colonial powers and other industrialised countries, which is every bit as cruel as it was in the colonial era. It is amazing that often the countries richest in raw materials have the poorest population. Take the example of Angola. It is obvious that this system has been implemented on purpose. The African country richest in raw materials was once the biggest coffee exporter in the world with enough money to feed its 12 million people easily.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001303.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001303.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is fundamentally to be welcomed. It deals with an acute problem, one directly linked with the world political situation, which is more extensively unpredictable than ever. Despite the very large number of good statements, I cannot share the rapporteur\'s view that nuclear energy is a practical alternative to energy imports. The reasons are well known. Only recently, a study was completed, commissioned by Parliament, which comes to the conclusion that the reprocessing plants at La Hague and Sellafield discharge as much radioactivity over seven years as was emitted in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The problem of the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste has not been resolved. Nor does nuclear fusion offer a solution. It therefore makes more sense to invest in safe and renewable energy sources than in nuclear fusion, which can achieve results in 100 years at best.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001304.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001304.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in its report on the progress of the Czech Republic, the Commission writes, and I quote: \"The Czech Republic continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.\" This is a remarkable statement. The Commission\'s report does not contain a single word about the Benes Decrees. The Commission overlooks the fact that upholding the Benes Decrees, which justify the expulsion and murder of many thousands of people after the Second World War, is clearly contrary to the accession criteria established by the Community. The Czech Republic\'s stance, that it does not wish to repeal them, amounts to a disregard for fundamental basic values and human rights which the EU expressly upholds. This means that Europe is sending out a signal which does lasting damage to the EU\'s credibility on matters of fundamental and human rights. As a representative of Austria I should also like to say a word on Temelin. Temelin has significant safety defects. The Commission\'s report on the safety of Temelin also confirms that Austria\'s misgivings about the reactor are justified. Notwithstanding this, the Czech Republic is trying, by activating the reactor, to present us with a fait accompli . This is not the kind of behaviour that we expect when working in a partnership. The place to resolve this problem is Brussels. I await a European initiative to close it down. Commissioner Verheugen, you described Temelin as the safest nuclear power station in Europe. This is not only not very helpful, it is also counterproductive if we are to identify a strategy for abandoning the site which is acceptable to everyone.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('1001305.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\1001305.txt','','','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100131.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100131.txt','Mr President, in the course of the last few years there has been a succession of serious tanker disasters world-wide and the countermeasures taken have either been ineffective or not worth mentioning. It is particularly bad this time, not least because it has affected a major European State an incident which could happen again at any time. We urgently require a directive if we are to reduce these risks. The 15 clearly do not suffice. These guarantee – making no claim to be exhaustive – a minimum of 3 things. No tanker or freighter fit only for the scrap heap must ever put into any harbour within the European Union again. All those involved, including the transport agent, are responsible for any ensuing damage, and these individuals are to provide satisfactory assurances. This is the only way of affording the victims the opportunity to make their claims for compensation. However, we must aim higher in the long-term, let there be no mistake about that. In other words, we need real cost-effectiveness for our entire energy supply system.','Mr President, in the course of the last few years there has been a succession of serious tanker disasters world-wide and the countermeasures taken have either been ineffective or not worth mentioning. It is particularly bad this time, not least because it has affected a major European State; an incident which could happen again at any time. We urgently require a directive if we are to reduce these risks. The 15 clearly do not suffice. These guarantee – making no claim to be exhaustive – a minimum of 3 things. No tanker or freighter fit only for the scrap heap must ever put into any harbour within the European Union again. All those involved, including the transport agent, are responsible for any ensuing damage, and these individuals are to provide satisfactory assurances. This is the only way of affording the victims the opportunity to make their claims for compensation. However, we must aim higher in the long-term, let there be no mistake about that. In other words, we need real cost-effectiveness for our entire energy supply system.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100132.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100132.txt','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','Madam President, the report describes very graphically the dangers of terrorism in both its old and new forms and the threat it poses as well as the powerlessness of Europe’s traditional institutions in the face of the terrorist threat. If I may take the liberty to contest perhaps only one point, the threat of terrorism really has nothing to do with a democratic society – even though such societies are often the target of terrorist activity – but is a far more pervasive threat against all people, whatever the political conditions in which they live. That is why it is so difficult, and perhaps not even so important, to define the concept of terrorism more precisely. Maybe we should rather do as the report suggests and proceed from a definition of terrorist acts which focuses on the threat they pose to individuals and groups of people. Agreement at European level is the prerequisite for more effectively coordinated action, and the acceleration of extradition processes, which the report proposes, is certainly important too. The principle enunciated in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, which calls terrorism a form of international crime, must be binding on all EU Member States, whose political representatives of particular ideological persuasions defend acts of violence inside or outside the EU as justifiable. I recall the discussions on the Middle East conflict, when some of our colleagues were suddenly able to sympathise with terrorist activities on one side or the other, although these were quite simply death squad operations and attacks on the civilian population. Besides the organisational requirement, namely cooperation between the responsible institutions, the political will to combat terrorist activities is also essential. There is never any justification for threatening an innocent person.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100133.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100133.txt','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.','Madam President, may I remind all those present, and yourself, that in this week 55 years ago a forgotten concentration camp, located in our immediate vicinity here, was liberated. The Natzwiller-Struthof Camp was one of the most gruesome of the Nazi camps, where thousands of people met their death due to medical experiments. It also contained one of the few gas chambers not located in the large extermination camps of Eastern Europe. I would therefore like to ask whether it would be possible for Parliament to have a plaque made. Secondly, I would like to suggest that we send a delegation there on the occasion of the next anniversary of its liberation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100134.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100134.txt','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','Mr President, the results of Europe-wide surveys clearly show that the European public are distancing themselves more and more from the Community ideal, and one substantial reason for that may well be the way in which many EU citizens have been given false information over recent years. For example, 43% of Europeans continue to believe that a work permit is required if they want to work in any other Member State. It is regrettable that the advantages offered by the EU are not always recognised as they should be. It is clearly evident from this, and also from many other examples, that the EU\'s existing information and communication policy is not working. Negative public opinion is of course reinforced by the EU\'s inability to get a grip on corruption, and by its failure to effectively dismantle the bureaucratic apparatus – I am thinking, for example, of the way our Parliament meets in two places. We should be a better state that what the public has at home. We have to take urgent action, by which I mean that the EU has to take a position on the things that have gone wrong, do away with them and put together an additional package of measures. For example, the EU could be introduced in schools as a specific subject, and pupils could be offered more opportunities to inform themselves locally about what is going on in the EU. Such measures would be a step in the right direction, so that negative preconceptions about the EU could be eroded and public support for the Community ideal would be restored.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100135.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100135.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations with the candidates for accession are entering their most difficult stage yet under the Spanish Presidency. The chapters on agriculture and regional development therefore demand the utmost sensitivity and particular prudence. A discriminating approach is called for, especially as regards direct payments to farmers. If we are not to be reproached for stepping up mass production to excessive levels, we must concentrate more on integrated rural policy in the accession countries rather than carrying over the system of direct payments. Particular negotiating skill will be required in view of the background of difficulties that are manifesting themselves and the mutually opposing interests with regard to support measures. It is indeed a matter of crucial importance that the negotiations should make capacity and sustainability possible for the future, by which I mean beyond 2004 and over and above Agenda 2000.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100136.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100136.txt','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','Mr President, the EU\'s institutions continue to provide opportunities for major irregularities in the conduct of financial affairs. The reason for these is still the weak points in the legislation, cooperation between national authorities that is poor or utterly lacking in coordination, and excessive laxity in monitoring and in imposing penalties. This is again confirmed in the reports before us on the discharge procedure for 2000. The Court, for example, did not name Member States that were negligent. These Member States, whose lax monitoring undermines the combating of fraud, should not only be shown up, but should also make good the damage their laxity causes to the EU. OLAF\'s work in connection with the travel expenses affair was equally inadequate. In order to stem fraud, though, we also need radical reform of Europe\'s VAT system, for example, by abolishing the deduction of tax within the enterprise chain at national level as well, as it at present strongly favours VAT fraud.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100137.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100137.txt','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','It is absolutely essential to the growth and functioning of e-commerce within the European Union, to strike a reasonable balance between the legitimate concerns of the consumer and those companies that want to use the Internet for e-commerce purposes. The compromise reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market does exactly that in our view. Providing the consumer with comprehensive information on the company’s terms of business particularly with regard to the legal aspects, safeguards the consumer against cheating, on the one hand, and protects the companies against unreasonable risks, on the other. E-commerce offers the Member States of the European Union hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in terms of creating jobs for the professionally qualified. This reform will undoubtedly help to achieve this goal in a way that is not to be underestimated.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100138.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100138.txt','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','Mr President, unfortunately, a number of delegates here in this House are using this extremely important debate about racism to place themselves on an imaginary list of good and evil. Whilst those of a left-wing persuasion define their position at a comfortable distance from Stalinism, Communism and left-wing extremism as if it were the most natural thing in the world, they are evidently incapable of recognising the difference between the right, right-wing extremism and fascism. However, those who, as a matter of course, only ever lay responsibility for crimes against humanity at the door of their political opponents, are committing the fatal error of simply using those very crimes to absolve themselves of all blame. No one in this House becomes an anti-fascist by denouncing their political opponents as fascists. One cannot escape one’s own history and one’s own responsibility that easily. Finally, a word to Mr Ford, who unleashed the customary tirade of hatred against Austria in his proposed amendment. Perhaps next time he could get his political facts straight, because that is not how the European Council responded. Austria still belongs to the European Council, and no one spoke to us on that occasion.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100139.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100139.txt','Mr President, Mr Schulz called me a racist. Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the opportunity to respond. He described himself as a representative of a country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism. I would never use such an expression, even though many members of my family were murdered during the Holocaust. I would ask Mr Schulz, as a representative of the country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism – his own words – to cite just one, just one, racist comment that I have made in the course of my career in politics. If he is unable to come up with one, then would he please apologise, not for criticising, but for vilifying my character.','Mr President, Mr Schulz called me a racist. Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the opportunity to respond. He described himself as a representative of a country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism. I would never use such an expression, even though many members of my family were murdered during the Holocaust. I would ask Mr Schulz, as a representative of the country notorious for its perpetrators of fascism – his own words – to cite just one, just one, racist comment that I have made in the course of my career in politics. If he is unable to come up with one, then would he please apologise, not for criticising, but for vilifying my character.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10014.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10014.txt','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.','Mr President, as the rapporteur rightly mentions in the second point in his report, budget consolidation must be given the highest priority at present. We can only increase the confidence of the public and, above all, of the financial markets in the euro by means of consistent budgetary discipline. I say all this bearing in mind that the euro yesterday sank near to its historic low of 3 May. The rapporteur was unable to include the stability programme which has now been presented by the Austrian Government in his report.  I would therefore like to point out that the new government is determined to overcome the problems that the previous government left behind. The old government led by the Social Democrats certainly did not bequeath it an easy task. However, all the commitments in the Stability Pact should now be fully met for the year 2000.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100140.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100140.txt','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','Mr President, the vote on deleting the 108% clause is about more than just Austria\'s environmental concerns. Transit traffic in a sensitive Alpine region is the secondary issue. Primarily, it is about the fact that Austria has a valid agreement with the European Union. The Commission is now trying, in its proposal for a regulation, to cancel this valid agreement unilaterally and expects the European Parliament to validate this illegal move. If we vote in favour of this proposal, we shall be helping to break an agreement to the detriment of a Member State of the Union. What this can and will do is to destroy any trust in agreements concluded and hence any trust in the legal security of the European Union. A large majority of people living in the Alpine regions in question came out in favour of accession to the EU in 1994, believing in the sanctity of contracts. If we vote in favour of this unwarranted abolition of the protection clauses, we shall foster reticence towards the Union and force people back on to street blockades. In this sense I urgently call on you to support Mr Swoboda\'s report or, given the present weather, not to leave him out in the rain.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100141.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100141.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must put an end to the tug of war over a system that complies with the WTO Agreement. The EU has not exactly covered itself in glory in this almost endless debate. I respect the Member States’ efforts to protect their banana producers against a considerable loss of income, but such considerations cannot justify persistently refusing to comply with agreements under international law. It should be our objective to create a market organisation consistent with the WTO dispute settlement body’s proposals as soon as possible, chiefly in the interests of companies which, because of the introduction of the COM in bananas, have been forced to accept financial losses which have threatened their very existence. This is also in the interests of those who have been hit by the punitive tariffs imposed by the United States. No one should underestimate the adverse impact of export restrictions of this kind on the economies of export-oriented countries, and above all on related jobs. This is an area where some Member States are indulging in protectionism at the expense of others. We pay subsidies to banana producers, we have to grapple with punitive tariffs, and we have to pay excessive banana prices in our supermarkets. Those Member States who want to continue with these restrictions have to recognise that they are partly to blame for the current situation, because they have quite simply forgotten to make structural changes in the field of banana production. The lack of competitiveness of EU banana production cannot be allowed to justify a refusal to accept uniform and non-discriminatory access to the European market.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100142.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100142.txt','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','Mr President, the completion of the internal market in electricity and natural gas is a wonderful opportunity for further development in the European Union in terms of the economy, the environment and also society. For a long time now it has been clear that the energy issue plays a central role, above and beyond security of supply. It is inextricably linked to the fate of our generation and future generations. The rapporteurs recognised this and have extended the Commission proposal to make it more forward-looking. Slowly but surely, more and more people are realising that the future lies in renewable sources of energy. They are the only sources which will guarantee a clean and secure energy supply in the long term. That is why we need to lay down some ground rules for these renewable sources of energy. The most important point here is that the true cost of supplying all energy is reflected in its price. To achieve this, when energy is supplied from traditional nuclear and fossil fuel sources, the external costs for insurance and the subsequent costs in terms of pollutant emissions need to be internalised. We need undiscriminatory access to the networks for electricity and also for biogas. This is a new concept which has been accepted here for the first time. We need fair transmission charges for all sources of energy and in a free market we also need the primary energy sources to be labelled. We owe this to our consumers. I would even go so far as to say that it is not only bills that should be labelled; energy sources should also be disclosed in the energy supplier\'s promotional literature.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100143.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100143.txt','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three left overs plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.','Contrary to the majority of the European Parliament, since Helsinki I have been of the opinion that the Intergovernmental Conference would have more than enough to do resolving the issues left over in Amsterdam. Developments have shown that the various wishes expressed to extend the agenda of this Intergovernmental Conference are still whistling in the wind. There is no guarantee even that a solution will be able to be found to the three \"left overs\" plus the problem of closer cooperation. That is why the hope that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have life breathed into it in Nice is a vain hope. This is a state of affairs which we liberals deeply regret.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100144.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100144.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement will change Europe on a lasting basis. That is why the quality of the preparations is so crucial. The Commission has today given the green light for the accession of ten countries, but it acknowledges at the same time that not all the criteria have been fulfilled as yet. In light of this aspect, the Paris newspaper Le Figaro reports its \'creeping and unpleasant sensation of jumping into a void without a parachute\'. I would not go quite that far, but numerous sensitive issues remain unresolved: financing, Cyprus, and the Beneš decrees are just some of the key words here. I am extremely disappointed by the Czech Government\'s stance of declining even to talk about the issues. Europe means talking to each other! I am disappointed by the Commission\'s stance. What kind of community of values will the EU become in future if it meekly accepts a law which assures impunity for murder? I have spoken of rifts. They are offset not only by the advantages but also the opportunity to enlarge the zone of security and stability and overcome the division of Europe. Enlargement is the political expression of reconciliation in Europe. That is our great opportunity.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100145.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100145.txt','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.','Mr President, according to a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of cases of thyroid cancer has risen sharply. That is the finding in a report by the Otto-Hug-Institut at Munich University. According to WHO forecasts, in the district of Gomel in Belarus alone, which is the main area affected, a third of the children who were under four years of age when the accident occurred will contract cancer of the thyroid during their lifetime. The repercussions could become apparent in seven million people over the next 50 to 70 years. In Belarus alone, there is a shortfall in the funds needed to treat radiation victims of EUR 800 million a year. Because there is no money, people over the age of 45 are no longer being treated. Meaning that they will die. Compare this amount with the EUR 1.2 billion spent by the Commission on nuclear research under the sixth EU nuclear research programme and draw your own tragic conclusions. We call on the European Union to issue strict, uniform nuclear safety standards. A repeat of Chernobyl must be prevented, which is why bogus environmental impact tests, such as those in Temelin, should not be carried out.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100146.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100146.txt','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','Mr President, just as the previous speaker stated, the last few weeks have shown that the actual scale of things in the Caucasus is considerably greater and also encompasses the entire Caspian Sea. Of course, in the current phase of the war in and around Chechnya we need to see damage limitation as the most important issue and to provide the swiftest possible emergency aid for the population. However, whilst the real interests in the Caucasus are not openly declared and remain undisclosed the attempts at resolution will not work. Each person interprets the causes of the war using the arguments which best suit his own theory. There is no admission that this area is one of the largest stores of raw materials in the world and that many multinational interests are focused on this area. So long as greed for these possessions and for the resources in this area remains unconquered – and this applies equally to Europe and many other states – the conflicts in this region will not be resolved and, long term, we also have to consider finding a major, comprehensive solution to this problem.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100147.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100147.txt','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.','With regard to the harmonisation of penalties imposed on carriers transporting third­country nationals lacking the documents necessary for admission into the territory of the Member States, I wish to say, on behalf of those Members of this House who belong to the Austrian Freedom Party, that although we are in favour of effective measures to prevent illegal entry, these should be taken within the framework of and taking account of the national systems of sanctions which have developed organically. We have accordingly voted against the minimum penalties proposed, but we do not question the fundamental objective of efficient measures to prevent illegal entry.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100148.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100148.txt','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this report. The constantly growing range of multimedia services surely makes safety arrangements necessary – and of a comparable nature right across Europe – in order to protect our children and young people from harmful content and its consequences. We have heard about the introduction of technical measures such as filters and acoustic warning signals, and also about the possibility of direct intervention in services that offend against the dignity of young people or are a danger to them. These certainly deserve our full support and should be implemented to the same degree in every Member State. I would, though, like to remind you that – as the report also points out – many safety arrangements are not there to supplant the responsibilities of the parents, who must, at the end of the day, be the ultimate and most important regulators. We will otherwise not be able to prevent the situation arising where young people may well be unable to buy swastika banners over the Internet, but can do so in the nearest flea market. Preventing that is a task for the educator and not for the censor.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100149.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100149.txt','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','Mr President, press freedom is undoubtedly one of the bases of any functioning democracy. I believe – also in my capacity as a journalist – that this is summed up very neatly in the motion. Yet if we look at freedom of information, we need to go a step further than simply guaranteeing that every journalist can practise his or her occupation without external influence. The public\'s freedom of information, however, is restricted to some extent even in some countries which guarantee freedom of the press. This is due, for example, to the financial relationships between media owners, but also an absence of journalistic responsibility. For example, it is worrying – even if it does not constitute a direct restriction on press freedom – that some magazines have now set up their various departments, including their political departments, as profit centres, which means that the political editors are now responsible for generating advertising revenue in their sections of the publication. There are also implications for press freedom if – as in Austria – a daily newspaper changes the political focus of its reporting when it is saved from bankruptcy by a bank with close links to a particular political party. There is one further problem in particular, namely the growing tendency to separate information from commentary. The result is a kind of ‘readers\' letter’ journalism, which means that even in supposedly independent newspapers, we are tending to find little else but the opinions of journalists who are influenced by the owners and their interests. However, in order to guarantee the right to information, it is essential that there is freedom of information for the general public as well as freedom of the press. As the European Parliament, we have an obligation to monitor compliance with press freedom in all countries of the world. Perhaps we should respect the public\'s right to diversity and freedom of opinion to a greater extent in future too.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10015.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10015.txt','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.','Mr President, you may be familiar with the saying: “you can say what you like on paper”. The same applies to human rights: they are often formulated and written down, yet still they are not upheld in many areas. Therefore, I have nothing but criticism for many such documents when it comes to women’s rights. In principle, I believe that, as in other areas, it is only possible to reach solutions in the sphere of women’s policy on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding. Women’s policy should not be formulated in such a way that it is as if women are working against men, rather women and men must join forces in order to seek and arrive at socio-political solutions.  Turning now to the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities: demands are being made to the effect that a balanced distribution of men and women within the EU institutions should be guaranteed. Does that mean that a regulation on quotas is to be introduced? Although a woman, I myself am against quotas, for I do not want to be a token woman. Rather, I want to be assessed on the basis of my performance and not on the basis of my gender. I know from experience that many women share this view.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100150.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100150.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Schierhuber’s report. I consider proposed Amendments Nos 28 and 29 to be particularly important. She rightly points out that any limitation on maximum quantities must correlate with actual processing capacities. Introducing national maximum quantities as proposed by the Commission would create a system which fails to take account of national processing capacities. The 50 tonne per annum limitation would exclude many Member States from cultivation in advance. The aim must be to develop a flexible system which also takes account of regional sales potential, thereby allowing all Member States to cultivate on an equal footing.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100151.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100151.txt','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','Mr President, of course we are committed to supporting the efforts of the people of East Timor in their fight for independence and democracy. But what form should this support take? As Europeans, we cannot behave like schoolmasters in a conflict in South-East Asia. In so doing, we will not engender any trust on the part of those people in Asia who would be important partners as regards the democratisation of this country. Above all, the disintegration and balkanisation of South-East Asia can surely not be Europe’s goal. The question was therefore asked in the leader in today‘s issue of the Herald Tribune: “Who are these Western crusaders to be lecturing the Asians?” – a question that may be a bitter pill for us to swallow. Our responsibility, as Europeans, is to support democratic development, which will also result in an improvement in the living conditions of the people. Perhaps, we will first have to learn as Europeans how to support a people in a foreign land in their fight for independence, as well as along their path to a democratic form of society.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100152.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100152.txt','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.','Mr President, the protection of financial interests must naturally continue to be one of our primary objectives. In this connection, we also support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, but after detailed discussions we also believe that this cannot be a cure-all for the future. The existing options must also continue to be developed. By this I mean strengthening OLAF and encouraging improved cooperation within the official machinery. It is noticeable, for example, that the Netherlands reports four times as many fraud cases as, for example, Spain or Greece. If Member States fail to get to grips with their fraud cases, they must also face the threat of having their subsidies cut off or they must be made to pay for the losses to the EU resulting from their authorities’ lax controls.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100153.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100153.txt','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','Madam President, not every Council initiative seeking to harmonise tax rules works to the benefit of the public. There are frequent announcements of good intentions to simplify tax rules. In actual fact, however, the measures are instead directed at keeping tax competition within the Union in check. This is particularly true of all measures which seek to harmonise tax rates, for the simple reason that it is highly unlikely that it will be agreed to align with those countries which have lower tax rates. Usually only the opposite approach is possible. This means that states with leaner governments and lower rates of tax are actually forced to levy taxes which they do not even need. This Council proposal to amend Directive 77/388 should be seen in a quite different light, because the purpose of the proposed measures is actually to simplify matters for taxpayers throughout Europe. The amendments seek above all to reduce companies\' administrative costs and thus strengthen competition. For this reason we can support these amendments which contribute to a genuine simplification of our tax legislation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100154.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100154.txt','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','Mr President, the proposal for a regulation creating a rapid reaction facility is one of those which are founded on thoroughly laudable intentions but which are liable to fail as a result of red tape and turf wars. The European Union has played a rather unconvincing role hitherto in the realm of rapid reaction and conflict resolution. The reason for this does not seem to lie so much in a shortage of manpower or financial commitment as in a failure to manage, plan and coordinate initiatives and activities. Be that as it may, the declaration of intent to become more active in the resolution of conflicts and in crisis management must be interpreted as an important step in the right direction. The EU has sometimes done marvellous things to improve the situation in crisis-torn areas, especially with financial resources. But money is no substitute for political will and political influence. If the EU wishes to play a more prominent role in future, it must have the political will to involve itself more actively in the implementation of appropriate measures. I am only the representative of a small country, but I can assure you that Austria, with its long tradition of neutrality and non-alignment, has amassed a particular wealth of experience in the domains of political mediation and crisis management, which makes parties to a conflict more willing to accept it as a mediator. Perhaps this is one of the very areas in which the EU should be making greater use of the experience of its smaller countries. Crisis management and mediation attempts are not so much about huge financial resources and large bloated organisations as about the trust that warring parties are prepared to place in an offer of intervention. And this is precisely where the EU has been failing. We have an image problem in the eyes of the parties to the numerous conflicts in the world today. That cannot be surmounted with new administrative units and financial plans alone. What is really lacking is a credible desire to assume greater global responsibility in the realms of mediation and crisis management.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100155.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100155.txt','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.','Mr President, I remain dismayed at the way in which Austria continues to be prejudged by 14 Member States of the European Union and believe that it is still far too early to assess definitively the overall consequences of the Feira summit. Certainly, there will be results on one or two further fronts thanks to the indisputably conscientious and ambitious work done there. Inevitably it was an intermediate and preparatory summit which did not deliver satisfactory results on fundamental issues and it was therefore disappointing, and above all not very spectacular, apart from the only item not on the agenda – that is, Austria – and it was therefore also a rather thankless task for the presidency. But what it really will be remembered for is a missed opportunity to return to normal relations within the Community. Neither in Feira nor in the ensuing days did the presidency succeed – against the wishes of the majority of Parliament – in smoothing the way back to normality. The further humiliation of Austria was at the very least tolerated. This will be the enduring image of Feira.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100156.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100156.txt','Mr President, I too voted in favour of the Stenmark report and would like to add that we all know that the costs of enlargement cannot at present be estimated, but that we have to take care that they do not exceed their limits, as the European public will take an unsympathetic view. That means that we must make savings. We often, and passionately, discuss the costs of translation, which are high and likely to rise in future. We should instead be working towards being able to reduce the costs of a seat for Parliament. The public does not understand how we can presume to say that we can solve Europe\'s problems when we are unable to agree on a location.','Mr President, I too voted in favour of the Stenmark report and would like to add that we all know that the costs of enlargement cannot at present be estimated, but that we have to take care that they do not exceed their limits, as the European public will take an unsympathetic view. That means that we must make savings. We often, and passionately, discuss the costs of translation, which are high and likely to rise in future. We should instead be working towards being able to reduce the costs of a seat for Parliament. The public does not understand how we can presume to say that we can solve Europe\'s problems when we are unable to agree on a location.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100157.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100157.txt','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','Mr President, as the representative of a country that once had direct access to the Mediterranean, I would like to convey my express support for fostering better relations between the EU and the Mediterranean region, and accordingly, for this report. It is not just a political, but also a historical commitment we must make. Needless to say, the EU’s activities with regard to securing peace in the Mediterranean, especially in relation to the centre of conflict in the Middle East, constitute a special responsibility, which, sadly, the representatives and members of the European Union, and particularly their foreign policy representatives, have been unequal to in the past. However, the pursuit of an autonomous and active European peace policy must remain one of the EU’s goals. That said, there are also other reasons besides the security aspects, as to why it is important for the EU to play a more active role in the Mediterranean region. The EU cannot, nor should it, spare any expense in the social and cultural spheres, in supporting democratic developments, in intervening in the event of human rights violations, in promoting economic development, and in improving dialogue and cooperation in as many areas as possible, if it wants to see discernible progress. If we are to avoid all these proposals, as detailed in the report, remaining no more than declarations of intent, we will need to work on the list of priorities, which has also been called for in this House, and which sets out in precise terms the order in which these intentions are to be carried out and the financing thereof. Incidentally, my tone was not one of regret when I mentioned our former access to the Mediterranean.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100158.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100158.txt','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.','We non-attached Members were unable to vote in favour of Amendment No 34 because the direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does not yet have force of law, is not legally tenable. As regards the ‘European arrest warrant’, we prefer a positive list to the negative list contained in the report because that preserves the principle of legality as a pillar of criminal law.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100159.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100159.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. It is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. This will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. We are also aware of the assumption behind the Commission\'s Letter of Amendment No. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in Category I. However, this assumption no longer holds true. First, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the BSE crisis. We shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10016.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10016.txt','Mr President, every day, the advocates of a war in the Middle East resort to ever weaker and ever less credible arguments. We are obliged to watch as undisguised attempts are made in the Security Council to use economic aid as a bribe to induce African states to consent to war. Since this House\'s last debate on war in Iraq, though, encouraging things have happened. For the time being, at least, the Turkish parliament has refused to allow the deployment of troops on Turkish territory. In Great Britain, over two hundred Labour Members of Parliament have expressed their opposition to a war. They deserve our respect. Those who oppose the war in Iraq that is being planned are no foes of the United States, but rather defenders of civilisation.','Mr President, every day, the advocates of a war in the Middle East resort to ever weaker and ever less credible arguments. We are obliged to watch as undisguised attempts are made in the Security Council to use economic aid as a bribe to induce African states to consent to war. Since this House\'s last debate on war in Iraq, though, encouraging things have happened. For the time being, at least, the Turkish parliament has refused to allow the deployment of troops on Turkish territory. In Great Britain, over two hundred Labour Members of Parliament have expressed their opposition to a war. They deserve our respect. Those who oppose the war in Iraq that is being planned are no foes of the United States, but rather defenders of civilisation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100160.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100160.txt','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.','Madam President, since 1996, not only have I been commuting between Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg, but have also, in the company of this Union of ours, been climbing, with greater or lesser success, various summits every six months. Such assaults on summits may appeal to extreme mountaineers such as our colleague Mr Messner, but I believe that the average member of the public still finds the proceedings laborious and difficult to understand. Admittedly, it has to be said of Copenhagen that it was well organised, that excellent work was done, and that there was a marked improvement in transparency. Not all of the problems were resolved, however, although they were properly worked through. One can rejoice in enlargement as an historic event, but one can also be amazed at the way in which Austria was treated as if it were a candidate for accession and at the derisory consideration given to its vital interests. It has again been demonstrated that the European Union cannot go on in the same way that it has to date, above all when there are 25 or more sitting down at the negotiating table and even more so when the main concern of every Council Presidency is to extricate itself from the whole business with as little inconvenience to itself as possible. It is for this reason alone that I believe a debate on greater continuity is needed as a matter of urgency. What will remain after the success of Copenhagen will actually, despite all the presidency\'s efforts, be a residual insecurity and, in the end, the hope that the heavily pregnant Convention will in the foreseeable future give birth to something that can serve as a basis for further improvements.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100161.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100161.txt','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','Fraud in the EU results in losses in the region of EUR 1 000 million a year. Despite improvements in combating fraud, it is almost impossible to bring the abuse or improper application of EU money under control. I repeat at this point my old criticism that structural abuse is inherent in the system. Intelligent crooks are always one step ahead of the authorities. That is why I also believe that far-reaching reforms are necessary. Moreover, citizens cannot understand how on the one hand national austerity budgets can be tightened up while on the other EU money disappears. And enlargement gives the problem a further dimension. I expressly support the measures Mrs Theato proposes in her report, but I still maintain that only a fundamental reform of EU subsidies can get to the roots of the problem.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100162.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100162.txt','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.','The President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, presented an impressive programme yesterday and elucidated it with additional comments. We are still talking declarations of intent, which must be followed up with deeds. The commitment displayed by the President of the Commission gives us no reason to believe, at the present time, that these deeds might fail to materialise.  We are also in the President’s debt for adopting an appropriate stance in relation to what is going on the home political front in Austria. Mind you, although I tried to follow his speech attentively yesterday, I may have missed something. The President has recently set out his position vis-à-vis Austria in connection with the safeguarding of EU fundamental values. However, I did not hear anything said about the happenings in Spain: not only have there been no happenings of this kind in Austria, I can tell you for sure that there will not be any in the future, indeed it would be unthinkable in a democratic Austria.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100163.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100163.txt','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','Mr President, the widening gap between the world\'s rich and poor represents an enormous potential risk to all concerned. Traditional development aid, which is taken more or less to be a sort of gift day in which the rich countries give to the poor ones, does not work. What we need is an all-embracing concept of the peaceful development of the poor countries. This is, of course, easier said than done, but we must remember that it is the countries with a wealth of raw materials, such as Angola or Nigeria, for example, whose people are the poorest. That is not by chance; there is a system behind it. We need to ask ourselves which, in this instance, are the donor countries and which the recipients – a question which, for me, has not been answered unambiguously. The position of the developing countries is worse than in the days of colonial rule. The key is fair world trade, in which raw materials have to be at the prices they deserve, and in which the net product must remain in these countries in order to develop their infrastructure.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100164.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100164.txt','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','Mr President, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. There have been 250 conflicts since the Second World War, and 86 million people have been killed in them. Mr Van Hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 September. We are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 September being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the Geneva Convention and the rule of law over nations. Crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation\'s cultural riches. To such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to ‘might is right’ on an international scale. To combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. It is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. The European Union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. It cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100165.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100165.txt','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','Mr President, complete liberalisation would lead to an increase in competition in the rail sector and enhance the competitiveness of railways as compared with road transport. There is no point in talking about projects to extend the European rail network until complete liberalisation has taken place. This is therefore a matter of urgency. Projects such as the Brenner base tunnel can only compete if freight transport can be offered at competitive rates. Adopting this directive would give a clear signal about liberalising rail transport. If a clear split is not made between the trains operated by the railway companies on the one hand and the management of railway infrastructure on the other, the objective of this directive will be seriously undermined. I have therefore rejected the solution opted for in Article 6(4) of the common position.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100166.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100166.txt','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','Madam President, unfortunately the names of European politicians have not been recorded in the annals of peace brokering in the Middle East over recent years. The Austrian chancellor Bruno Kreisky was one of the first to urge Israeli politicians to start direct talks with Arafat. What was then a Utopian ideal is now political reality. But where are today’s European Kreiskys? Where are the visions, the ideas, the creativity and the courage to go beyond standard, purely bureaucratic duties? Europe has endeavoured over recent years, besides financial and political activities in the Middle East, to leave political brokering to the USA and to focus on purely economic issues in this region. Perhaps this was a reaction to Europe’s chaotic, uncoordinated political stance in relation to the warring factions. One of the biggest obstacles preventing EU representatives from assuming an active role in the peace process is what are, at times, incomprehensible and intolerable unilateral accusations and intrepid judgements. For example, why on earth did the Swedish foreign minister issue such an aggressive, unilateral judgment of Israel’s show of power after visiting Israel and the settlements during the Swedish Presidency, thereby scuppering any chance of brokering by the EU during the Swedish Presidency. No one can seriously ignore Israel’s desire for peace. No Israeli politician has ever ventured as far as the last prime minister, Ehud Barak, did in his proposals. The present catastrophic situation is the result. Blaming new Sharon government for it, as has been done here, merely hampers the efforts of the EU representatives to broker an agreement. Europe should understand, once and for all, that none of us looks on the Middle East merely in terms of friends or foes. If Europe is to have any chance of being taken seriously as a broker, we need a consistent language in our foreign policy, a neutral attitude towards the warring factions and to work out and broker feasible peace proposals. Simply stating ones support for the claims of one side or the other is several principles short of a peace policy. Issues such as the Palestinians\' right to return, the division of Jerusalem and the Holy Mount, the problem of the settlement policy and Palestinian statehood and the Israeli people’s justifiable demand for security must be discussed directly by the parties to the conflict. Our opinions must take second place if we want to be taken seriously as peace brokers. To do all this, we need high-profile, persuasive people to represent Europe, who will be taken seriously by all parties in the Middle East. I arrived back in Strasbourg last night directly from visiting Israel. My statements are perhaps coloured somewhat by my private connections. But you can rest assured that this nation wants peace on both sides. It is part of our job to engage in talks with both sides. It does not always have to be the politicians currently in office.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100167.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100167.txt','Mr President, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo\'s model of a Convention sets out an accessible and also, I hope, successful way ahead into Europe\'s future. I also agree with your desire, in response to statement 23, for an enlarged agenda which, however, the Convention should set for itself. Even such an enlarged agenda, though, offers little hope of achieving the desired result, namely a single basis for decision-making. I am far more inclined to think that the possibility suggests itself of submitting to the Council various options which could also take account of the different positions. I know that on one point I stand quite alone, although I am in the right. I wish to reiterate my warning against setting an earlier date for the Intergovernmental Conference planned for Nice in 2004, because I am firmly convinced that the people would see it as an evasion of their vote. If, as all sides in the House maintain, we really are striving for an open debate which is accessible to the public, then nothing could be better suited to that than to include the themes in the next European elections.','Mr President, Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo\'s model of a Convention sets out an accessible and also, I hope, successful way ahead into Europe\'s future. I also agree with your desire, in response to statement 23, for an enlarged agenda which, however, the Convention should set for itself. Even such an enlarged agenda, though, offers little hope of achieving the desired result, namely a single basis for decision-making. I am far more inclined to think that the possibility suggests itself of submitting to the Council various options which could also take account of the different positions. I know that on one point I stand quite alone, although I am in the right. I wish to reiterate my warning against setting an earlier date for the Intergovernmental Conference planned for Nice in 2004, because I am firmly convinced that the people would see it as an evasion of their vote. If, as all sides in the House maintain, we really are striving for an open debate which is accessible to the public, then nothing could be better suited to that than to include the themes in the next European elections.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100168.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100168.txt','The position of the non-attached Members on the content of the first two decisions of Parliament regarding the Statute for Members has not changed. In order, however, to put an end to the present inactivity on this issue, we have – against the background of recent negotiations with the Council – agreed to the confirmation of these decisions.','The position of the non-attached Members on the content of the first two decisions of Parliament regarding the Statute for Members has not changed. In order, however, to put an end to the present inactivity on this issue, we have – against the background of recent negotiations with the Council – agreed to the confirmation of these decisions.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100169.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100169.txt','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','Without underestimating the importance of fundamental rights to the citizens of the Union, the non-attached members in the European Parliament abstained during the vote for two reasons. First, because problems with the text of the Charter (such as the ban on the reproductive but not the therapeutic cloning of human beings) precluded a vote in favour and, secondly, because the convention as an instrument of future constitutional development would appear to be more than dubious. However, what worries us most is that the twin-track jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights will give rise to inconsistent case law, resulting in the unequal treatment of citizens in these sensitive areas, in breach of their fundamental rights. We are also convinced that merely having national parliamentarians on board is no substitute for an in-depth debate of constitutional questions by the national parliaments.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10017.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10017.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in amending the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, we have taken an urgently needed step in the right direction, i.e. towards extensifying cattle farming. Apart from reducing beef production, I am also in favour of safeguarding a minimum wage for small holdings and increasing animal premiums. However, the European Union still needs to be prepared for any sudden crises in the future. It is not yet clear if the funding for this regulation from the savings made from reforms under Agenda 2000 will last. Promoting agriculture with no upper limits and arbitrarily shifting money from the organisation of the market into rural development will upset any budget planning in the long term. This problem has yet to be resolved.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100170.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100170.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating a motion for a resolution that is lacking in substance. It is difficult to identify exactly what the complaints are, which means we do not know precisely what we are discussing. Who has actually seen Mr Pelinka’s letter of resignation? Who knows the real circumstances of his resignation? What is known in Austria about Mr Pelinka’s resignation is the fact that various versions are being circulated by various people. What I know is the fact that legal proceedings are pending between Mr Pelinka and Mr Haider. Under no circumstances is it the business of politics or of any parliament to go so far as to criticise proceedings before an independent court that have not yet concluded. Every state governed by the rule of law provides for constitutional legal measures. A policy that does not respect the independence of the judiciary does not, in the final analysis, respect the principle of the separation of powers and thus violates a basic principle of democracy. Racism and xenophobia are a serious problem throughout the Union and one that must be taken seriously. It must be combated by every means available wherever it arises. What I expect of the Monitoring Centre is to take stock of the situation objectively and to look at it in comparative terms, so as to allow the policy-makers to react to it. What I do not expect of the Monitoring Centre is interference in day-to-day political matters and to exercise its mandate with an ideological bias. Because underlying the concept of racism and xenophobia there are people and their destinies, and they should not be used to put on some kind of political show. What I oppose is that this simplistic motion for a resolution is also tabled by those Austrian Members who pretend to support my home country.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100171.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100171.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the tax systems of the Union are becoming ineffective and are yielding less and less revenue. One reason for this is that the systems have become so complicated that even experts find them impossible to handle. There are too many individual taxes, and these taxes are excessively complex. Taxpayers feel they are being fleeced by the State; how are they supposed to understand their current tax liability when the system even baffles experts? Burdens which the public do not understand are automatically perceived to be unfair. Their logical response is to refuse to pay. This refusal need not take the form of tax evasion. Very often a taxpayer will avoid taxation by doing less work, but there have also been cases of economic activities being relocated abroad. It surely cannot be our intention in adopting new taxes, so-called Euro-taxes, to accelerate this downward spiral in our countries. We have to appreciate that the people of Europe will not strive for greater economic success until hard work and efficiency are properly rewarded again in Europe. We are familiar with the vital statistics: with taxes and public charges accounting for more than 45% of earned income, many of our Member States have budget deficits, whereas the United States, where taxes and public charges account for less than 30% of earned income, is achieving budget surpluses of several hundred billion dollars. We must aim to streamline and simplify our tax systems and to reduce the rate of taxation, not increase it. The taxation of aircraft fuel must therefore be rejected. The sixth VAT directive must be simplified; if any limit is to be imposed at all on VAT rates, it should be an upper limit and certainly not a prescribed minimum. This means that zero-rating of VAT must be permissible for the provision of electronic services.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100172.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100172.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','Mr President, Commissioner, let us be under no illusions: many people are fully aware and understand the importance of SMEs in Europe, just as they recognise that high taxes and an overblown bureaucracy are stifling the growth of our companies. Yet when it comes down to brass tacks, many politicians – national and European – forget what they are supposed to stand for and ultimately vote in favour of tax increases, more bureaucracy and more complex legal provisions. That is also a major reason why small and medium-sized enterprises are not growing in the way that we would expect. Today’s motion for a resolution on market rules for the self-employed is a vivid example of this game with marked cards. It claims to work in the interests of stakeholders, and yet in reality, it is intended to achieve exactly the opposite effect. Both market access and the operation of new and smaller freelance business are likely to be substantially impeded as a result of this initiative. I regard the postponement of today’s vote on this motion as a positive sign that some of our fellow Members have recognised this hypocrisy and are taking action against it by lobbying for genuine improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100173.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100173.txt','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','We politicians must develop a system that leads to a breakthrough in the principle of cost transparency for transport providers. This resolution is an important step, and calls on the Commission to present some concrete proposals at long last. Transport problems can only be solved on the basis of a European consensus. As a representative of a country that has to cope with the considerable problems of traffic in transit through the Alps, I call on the European Union to devote more attention to this subject than it has to date. The Union has not yet adequately accepted its responsibility in this area. Fair competition between transport providers is only possible if external costs are also included in taxes. It is essential for ecological and geographical aspects to be covered in this uniform system, for the benefit of both the environment and the public.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100174.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100174.txt','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.','Mr President, the Finnish Presidency has, without doubt, taken the development of the European Community forward. However, European security policy must be seen as one of the failures of the European Community in the light of its reaction to the centres of conflict in Chechnya and Grozny. We as a European Union will only gain credibility with the outside world and with our own people once we stop making too much of a distinction between various centres of conflict. One of the problems as I see it, however, is in relation to the human rights of the various minorities within the Union, especially with regard to freedom of worship. There are still huge differences within the European Member States as far as the recognition of religious minorities is concerned. For example, it is at present practically impossible for Orthodox Jewish communities in Germany to set themselves up as an independent community. The incoming presidency will have a special responsibility to regulate the rights of religious communities within the EU.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100175.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100175.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report troubles me. The problems are so serious as to preclude Turkey\'s accession in the foreseeable future. I should like to table three reservations: Turkey has not even started to resolve the problem of the minorities living there. Secondly, there is no end in sight to the dispute with Greece over the island of Cyprus, which still smoulders on. And thirdly, Turkey\'s criminal justice system, based as it still is on the death penalty and police torture, is unworthy of a western democracy. Horrific pictures of serious maltreatment of detainees by the police were recently broadcast on German television. In other words, Turkey still has a long and difficult way to go and it obviously needs our help along the way. We aim to help Turkey become a free democratic country in which the rule of law prevails. The Council should consider whether granting Turkey candidate status has done more harm than good here. It will have done more harm if Turkey\'s expectations of accession have been raised and cannot be met because of the political situation. The Islamic forces will certainly know how to make political capital out of any such disappointment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100176.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100176.txt','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','Experience shows that the economic operators want to have the option of paying import duties in the place where their headquarters in the Union is located. We Independents therefore support – above all, in the interests of enabling the Internal Market to function successfully – the demand of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for the Commission to draft a legislative proposal concerning the place in which the customs debt was incurred.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100177.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100177.txt','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.','Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this highly informative report. One positive point is that small and medium-sized enterprises have been identified as a very important target group, as this group is one where there could be considerable problems at the changeover stage. What is more, we should also support any initiative and also call upon the Commission in the clearest terms to introduce measures without delay to counter excessive bank charges for intra-Community money transactions. We must demonstrate to the European public that the euro will cut administrative costs, to their advantage. We should not just talk about the euro and provide information about it, but the information we provide must also convince the public that the euro will bring tangible advantages for them. The excessive bank charges in force at present are giving precisely the opposite signal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100178.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100178.txt','Obviously it makes sense and we need to combat money laundering. However, there are differing interpretations as to how this can be achieved. If we set minimum penalties in this framework resolution, we shall come up against elementary rule of law problems. If we set minimum penalties, we shall be contradicting cleverly worked-out national criminal codes. We need to approximate, not unify our criminal codes. Under the rule of law and democracy, criminal codes represent very core of national sovereignty and the Member States should therefore be left to set them.','Obviously it makes sense and we need to combat money laundering. However, there are differing interpretations as to how this can be achieved. If we set minimum penalties in this framework resolution, we shall come up against elementary rule of law problems. If we set minimum penalties, we shall be contradicting cleverly worked-out national criminal codes. We need to approximate, not unify our criminal codes. Under the rule of law and democracy, criminal codes represent very core of national sovereignty and the Member States should therefore be left to set them.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100179.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100179.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although money is not everything, the way money is handled shows if a policy is successful or not. Those were the words of a former President of the Court of Auditors, Bernhard Friedmann, and if we take those words as a yardstick for this year\'s report, then we really have to ask just how successful the Union\'s policies are in practice. The report before us summarises what we already know from many other reports: there is still a need for reform in financial management and the way funds are implemented. There are dramatic shortcomings in many areas, which suggests that financial errors are endemic. The Commission\'s tendency to blame irregularities and deficits the Court discovers chiefly on the Member States is unacceptable. Of course the Member States cannot shake off their own responsibilities, if there are irregularities or fraud in the Member States, the Commission must act accordingly. The recovery rate, that is the reimbursement of funds that have been lost, is not satisfactory. It is not acceptable if Member States underperform in the fight against fraud because of lax controls and are then slow to get funds reimbursed as well. Politically speaking, the Commission has final responsibility for the EU budget and it is accordingly also responsible for efficient implementation of funds and checks. One of the things mentioned in the Commission\'s responses on last year\'s report is that new systems are being introduced which primarily aim to make it easier to check the efficiency of VAT collection in the individual Member States. Given that significant shortcomings have also been identified in this area, we also have to ask how effective these control mechanisms are. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for its successful investigative work and I call on the Commission to take further structural reform actions so that mismanagement and financial errors become a thing of the past.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10018.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10018.txt','Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report. In my own country, the issue of the White Paper on Transport is a matter for vigorous debate. The White Paper on European transport policy points in the right direction, towards the opening-up of the railway market, the revision of the guidelines and of the TENs, and towards taking enlargement – which is almost upon us – into account in the area of transport. One of the White Paper\'s proposals is of enormous importance in view of something currently under discussion – the extension of the Austrian ecopoint system. A proposal for a framework directive to lay down the principles on which charges for the use of the infrastructure were to be imposed on all cross-border carriers was to have been presented as recently as 2002, yet, even today, we wait in vain for this directive on transport infrastructure costs, which is intended to at last facilitate a cross-subsidy, along Swiss lines, for the benefit of environmentally friendly means of transport and to pave the way for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. Such a transport infrastructure costs directive will be a criterion against which our credibility and the much-invoked European transport policy can be judged. We need it urgently!','Mr President, I have voted in favour of this report. In my own country, the issue of the White Paper on Transport is a matter for vigorous debate. The White Paper on European transport policy points in the right direction, towards the opening-up of the railway market, the revision of the guidelines and of the TENs, and towards taking enlargement – which is almost upon us – into account in the area of transport. One of the White Paper\'s proposals is of enormous importance in view of something currently under discussion – the extension of the Austrian ecopoint system. A proposal for a framework directive to lay down the principles on which charges for the use of the infrastructure were to be imposed on all cross-border carriers was to have been presented as recently as 2002, yet, even today, we wait in vain for this directive on transport infrastructure costs, which is intended to at last facilitate a cross-subsidy, along Swiss lines, for the benefit of environmentally friendly means of transport and to pave the way for the transfer of traffic from road to rail. Such a transport infrastructure costs directive will be a criterion against which our credibility and the much-invoked European transport policy can be judged. We need it urgently!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100180.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100180.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to inform the House that my group and I have rejected the report, and explain why we have done so. As I said yesterday, Austria does not want to keep its ecopoint system for ever; what we want is a fair and sustainable solution to Europe\'s transport problems. For as long as such a thing is not in sight – and, above all else, for as long as the new transport infrastructure directive is not adopted – the transit issue needs to be dealt with by acceptable transitional rules. It is for this reason that we have not approved today\'s Caveri report. We have supported Amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21, as they call for the retention of the ecopoint system and an upper limit for the number of journeys by HGVs until such time as a sustainable solution to the problems of the whole of the Alpine region enters into force. I see the failure to even vote on Amendment No 18, which is based on the Danish compromise, as sending a very poor message to the people of Austria.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100181.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100181.txt','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.','Mr President, after both the First and Second World Wars, people demanded ‘No More War!’, and the international legislation drawn up in order to give this demand tangible form expressly incorporated a clearly defined ban on the use of force, making the use of it subordinate to the United Nations. They expressly rejected any preventive war of aggression without United Nations approval. Any preventive strike against Iraq on the part of America and Great Britain would, without a doubt, be in breach of international law, and its consequences for the Middle East, for the Arab world, but also for the world community as a whole, would be incalculable. If one or more states arrogate to themselves the pre-eminent right to use force and take the law into their own hands, that amounts to unmitigated private warfare, the so-called law of the strong, one of the characteristics of which is that it breeds more private warfare. Looking at things from this angle, the European Union must do everything possible to avert a unilateral war of aggression. Europe\'s peoples have long known this, and now it is time for European politics to grasp it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100182.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100182.txt','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.','The Commission proposal for facilitating more extensive financial corrections is to be welcomed. The accumulated fraud with EU funds gives cause for concern, as do a number of situations in the institutions – I wish briefly to refer here to the Court of Auditors\' most recent special report on the support system for oilseeds. These matters call for more effective action than has hitherto been the case. The Commission proposal for increasing, by means of an extended time period, the possibilities for recovering amounts lost, is a step in the right direction. The Freedom Party delegation has therefore voted in favour of the report.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100183.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100183.txt','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.','Madam President, you could not be more wrong. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the President-in-Office of the Council left the House just as the representative of the last group of delegates was about to speak, thereby registering his disinterest. The honourable members are left wondering whether this is an act against the Independents or against the first Austrian representative to speak in this debate. I fear that in behaving as he has done today, the President-in-Office of the Council, who spoke out against exclusion earlier on, is guilty of that very thing I therefore refuse to give my opinion on the programme of the French Council Presidency, owing to a suspected lack of interest, and I regret that such a signal has been sent out at the beginning of the Council Presidency. In spite of the foregoing, being an optimist, I hope that in future this Council Presidency, like others before it, will take cognisance of its neutral position, and that at the end of the day, normality will also return to the group.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100184.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100184.txt','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions. The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the ne bis in idem principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied. I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the nullum crimen sine lege principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100185.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100185.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, I have prepared a speech which essentially repeats what the previous speaker said. I am, unfortunately, in the sad position of having to read out to you a message from Reuters news agency which proves the importance of what we are talking about here. The message was issued at 3.07 p.m., less than 30 minutes ago. It reads: Seoul, 22 injured in accident in South Korean nuclear power station. The precise text reads: 22 workers have been injured in an accident in a South Korean nuclear power station. They were exposed to radioactive radiation when heavy water escaped. This was reported today by the Yonhap news agency.','Mr President, Commissioner, I have prepared a speech which essentially repeats what the previous speaker said. I am, unfortunately, in the sad position of having to read out to you a message from Reuters news agency which proves the importance of what we are talking about here. The message was issued at 3.07 p.m., less than 30 minutes ago. It reads: Seoul, 22 injured in accident in South Korean nuclear power station. The precise text reads: 22 workers have been injured in an accident in a South Korean nuclear power station. They were exposed to radioactive radiation when heavy water escaped. This was reported today by the Yonhap news agency.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100186.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100186.txt','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.','Because of the high incidence of fraud in connection with Community resources, we in the Freedom Alliance have supported tighter controls since time immemorial. We therefore welcome the Theato report and have voted for the creation of the office of a European Public Prosecutor. Our position, however, is that national prosecuting powers must not be affected by the creation of the post of European Public Prosecutor. The creation of this new authority must not lead to any transfer of sovereignty in core areas. Within these limits, the European Public Prosecutor, acting as a coordinating authority, can make a valuable contribution to the suppression of fraud.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100187.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100187.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can, fundamentally, do no other than agree with Mrs Breyer. For years already, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and opinions can differ very widely, particularly when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, people will see the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, as a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at present, being told that they will have to work for longer in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can, fundamentally, do no other than agree with Mrs Breyer. For years already, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and opinions can differ very widely, particularly when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, people will see the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, as a provocation. It is not only in my own country that people are, at present, being told that they will have to work for longer; in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form. The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100188.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100188.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU had to respond to the enormous increase in the number of patent applications in this area is not a matter of doubt, nor is there any doubt about the fact that these must not be allowed to be detrimental to the interests of small software companies. What the Commission is proposing, however, encourages the domination of the software market by monopolies, as small software companies cannot afford disputes about patent rights. Greater protection for patents would enhance the large service providers’ position of strength in the market and would consequently mean that software developers would have to pay fees, in other words, royalties, for a wide variety of standard functions. It is the consumer who will end up paying the bill. The attempt to create greater legal certainty by means of this directive is to be welcomed, but, in this instance, it misses the mark. On the one hand, there is no single definition of the ‘technical contribution’ required for a patent to be granted, and, on the other, it blurs the boundaries between the end product – which can be patented – and the software itself, which cannot. The EU needs patent law that not only encourages innovation, but also gives better protection to inventors who lack financial clout. This proposal from the Commission guarantees neither of these things, and that is why we have voted against it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100189.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100189.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission’s advocacy of the maintenance of free competition in Europe is of course something to be welcomed. We are of course in favour of rigorous measures being taken to deal with cartel agreements, but control measures, whether at national or European level, must not be designed in such a way that free competition is hampered by red tape. This means that the Regulation that is to be enacted must end up increasing legal certainty, and must not reduce it. With this in mind, we will endorse the amendments that our fellow-Members have tabled.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10019.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10019.txt','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.','Mr President, we would like, if at all possible to get this report dealt with before the end of this Parliamentary term by using a first reading agreement, which would mean that we would have to hold the debate this week but defer the vote until April, in order to be able to negotiate agreement with the Council. When it comes to the vote, there will be, at most, a very narrow majority. It may be that the decision, be it favourable or unfavourable, will be taken by a very small number of votes, and then, in any case, at least 50% of MEPs – to be fairly precise about it – will be less than happy. I would ask that we should debate the report tomorrow but defer the vote to April, by which time we will have been able to discuss matters with the Council. Preparations have, in essence, been made for this, so we may yet be able to conclude a first reading agreement.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100190.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100190.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am firmly convinced of the importance of provisions designed to eliminate the use of misleading descriptors in the labelling of tobacco products. It must be clear to consumers that they are intentionally exposing themselves to a health risk. Palliative descriptors such as ‘low-tar’ or ‘light’ merely salve people’s consciences and obscure the fact that these products are not the least bit healthier than any others. Sadly, however, the Union’s policy is ambivalent. On the one hand, it takes a resolute stand for the protection of public health by means of measures such as the present directive, while on the other hand it spends a billion euros on subsidising tobacco-growing in the Community. The Union must set itself the aim of pursuing a rational policy. However, it is surely well-nigh impossible to explain away this particular contradiction to the European public.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100191.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100191.txt','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.','The Austrian Freedom Party\'s delegation rejects the Commission proposal for harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicle traffic at weekends and on public holidays. One reason for this is that the directive would violate the subsidiarity principle and would substantially limit national competence in the area of Austria\'s road traffic regulations. Another is that a transit country like Austria cannot be expected to tolerate relaxation of the travel bans at weekends and on public holidays; increasing levels of traffic are even now exacting a heavy toll on our environment and on the health of the Austrian people. On the contrary, we need to focus primarily on a Europe-wide solution to traffic problems and on the promotion of alternative means of transport.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100192.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100192.txt','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.','Mr President, we need to get used to the idea in the 21st century that we have to show water a completely new respect. In the 20th century, water was merely a free evacuation and disposal system for poisonous substances, special waste, chemicals and so on. And we can already see the consequences! We need to rethink and recognise that water is our most important asset and that our responsibility towards it goes far beyond the present generation. The directive must be negotiated accordingly and our citizens must be able to understand what we or rather what the Commission is planning here. In the final analysis, water protection is not just a social question, it is a decisive social question, which is why the polluter pays principle must be applied more rigorously as otherwise we all bear the consequences. Given the advanced state of pollution of water resources, it is important not just to maintain the status quo but to ensure during the vote tomorrow that we achieve genuine quality improvements.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100193.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100193.txt','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, as a representative of the Freedom Party, I respect the concerns some of my fellow MEPs have with regard to the democratic developments in Austria. My reaction may come as a surprise when I say that I personally am at a loss as to the heightened sensitivity displayed towards Austria in matters of respect for human rights, having a sense of responsibility for one’s own past, and the stability of democracy. Austria must take the responsibility on its own shoulders for the often dubious image other countries tend to have of it, rightly or wrongly. The refusal of our government, down through the years, to acknowledge our complicity in the horrors of the Second World War, together with their refusal to properly compensate the Jewish victims and those forced into hard labour, have done a great deal to bolster this negative image. This FPÖ has now entered into a coalition with the ÖVP, due to the outcome of elections held on 3 October 1999, when the previous government was voted out of office. This is the citizen of a state’s prerogative, for it is the founding principle of a democracy. When the talks between the SPÖ and ÖVP broke down, the Socialists attempted to form a minority government and asked the FPÖ for their support. (Heckling)  We were offered three ministerial posts – you can read it for yourself in the newspapers – the very party that is being denounced as fascistic here! When we suddenly refused this offer, an inflammatory and rabble-rousing propaganda campaign began that is beyond our comprehension to this day. The FPÖ party is established in Austria’s political landscape. The head of the government of one of the nine provinces belongs to this party and it is involved in all the other provincial governments. What many Austrians are wondering today is why their democratic decision has suddenly been interpreted as an expression of a fascistic cast of mind, and why the campaign did not begin until the Freedom Party rejected the support of a minority government comprising the SPÖ? There is prejudice at work here, which – without going into our programme – is reducing the darkest hour of European history to a political spectacle. I am filled with disgust when certain of our opponents get mileage out of the millions of deaths that took place in the gas chambers of the concentration camps as cheap propaganda, as, for example, the Italian MEP Bertinotti did yesterday on Italian TV when he accused Mr Haider of denying the holocaust. Shame on you Mr Bertinotti! You might have run out of political arguments but that does not give you the right to use those who were murdered as cheap propaganda. Denouncing a democratically elected politician as a Nazi does not make you an anti-fascist! On the contrary, you are deriding the true victims of National Socialism and playing down what the fascist dictators did. Your behaviour stems from your own prejudices, you are dispensing with any form of political debate and you are displaying precisely the kind of behaviour you claim to oppose. The attacks against Austria’s new government and the attempts to exert political influence in a Member State are an insult to the Austrian people. That is why we are indebted to the Commission for taking a stance that separates it from the rest. The new coalition agreement is about reforming a democracy, the rights of the opposition, commitment to compensating those forced into hard labour…. (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100194.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100194.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report, and did so because I believe that tourism\'s future lies in the development of sustainable tourism which takes account of ecological considerations and promotes them. In Austria, which is a tourist destination, the principle of sustainable development is of primary importance to the tourist sector. Protection and maintenance of the countryside and of sensitive regions have demonstrated their potential for the future and are characteristic of our country\'s practice of what is termed ‘soft tourism’. I therefore expressly welcome the Commission\'s initiative to develop and implement an Agenda 21 to promote sustainable development of tourism in Europe.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100195.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100195.txt','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.','We Independents always stand up for defending basic rights and therefore also support efforts to create a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the European Union. However, we do not understand this Charter as a step in the direction of a European constitution, which we reject because of the centralising effect this would have. Any such Charter must also be designed in such a way that there can be no overlap of powers between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100196.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100196.txt','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.','Mr President, tomorrow we shall be voting on a report that no longer deals with the original problem, namely the reduction of atmospheric pollutants by means of a qualitative and quantitative restriction on transit traffic through Austria. The outcome of the Conciliation Committee is that far more ecopoints are available for vehicles remaining in the ecopoint system than are actually required. The upshot is that this system in effect no longer sets any limits on transit traffic through Austria and is quite simply pointless. Moreover, Austria is required to introduce an expensive counting system that is virtually unfeasible technically and brings only expense and no ecological benefits. In view of this, the fact that the arrangement will apply for three years and not only for the Alpine passes but for the whole of Austria is completely irrelevant. To agree to this arrangement would be sheer and utter nonsense and in the end will damage the standing of this House. I therefore ask you to reject the report tomorrow. It would land on the list of senseless decisions and that list is already long enough. With every yes vote on this report we, the European Parliament, will be making ourselves a mockery six months before the elections.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100197.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100197.txt','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.','Mr President, as someone who is deeply dismayed by the on-going out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by fourteen Member States, I am particularly pleased that the initiative for the report in question has come from Austria. This matter has preoccupied us for a long time, too long in my opinion. Its importance is demonstrated by the constantly increasing incidence of such delinquency. Nevertheless, irrespective of the importance of efficient law enforcement in this area, we must not depart from the principle of criminal-law liability and postulate strict liability. The report is therefore on the right track. In my opinion, the most urgent need is to create, as soon as possible, in all Member States and in the candidate countries, the legal and technological capability to search the contents of the Internet for child pornography. Finally, I would like to reiterate the view which I have held for some years that an obligation must also be placed on providers and, by way of conclusion, may I again stress that it would perhaps be useful to formulate a uniform definition of “children” within the Union. Children are taking on various ages in this Union.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100198.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100198.txt','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.','Mr President, likewise dismayed by the persistent out-of-hand condemnation of Austria by the 14 Member States, I consider it particularly important and I am pleased that we are showing unity in this matter. I only have the following points to add or raise with regard to this excellent report; firstly, the appropriate training of specialists to be able to also prosecute the perpetrators; secondly, the need for the capability to carry out legal proceedings at international level; and thirdly, the need to be able to punish crimes committed in third countries under domestic law. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Member States of the EU are so resolutely and actively supporting this Austrian proposal and not just taking refuge in soundbites and clichés.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100199.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100199.txt','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.','Mr President, allow me first to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his declarations of principle, especially with regard to the participation of the European Parliament. Without doubt, a difficult task stands ahead of him and he will not even be able to reap the fruits of some of his work, such is the nature of the presidency. If I confine myself to the problem of the Intergovernmental Conference, discussion of the scope of the agenda alone illustrates the differences of opinion which prevail between the Member States. At the risk of repeating myself and knowing that I am at odds with the majority of Members in this House, I stand by my view that the Helsinki Council was right to be so unassuming. After all, we all have first-hand knowledge of how the questions which will now be the central topics of the Intergovernmental Conference were put off and finally left unresolved before Amsterdam. The European Parliament’s list of requests doubtless contains important questions, but they should not be tackled until the leftovers have been resolved and they should not allow questions of the utmost importance relating to enlargement to be negotiated in passing yet again. We shall have an opportunity to tackle other matters once these nuts have been cracked. Visionaries who put speed before thoroughness worry me.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10020.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10020.txt','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur on her excellent work and also on the commendable way in which she cooperated in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Philosophical and literary texts, as well as popular wisdom, tell us that ‘you are never too old to learn’. The ‘Lifelong Learning’ initiative was a perfectly proper one and the result of a wise decision, aimed at doing justice to the demands of the twenty-first century and at enabling people to adjust to these demands. It is mainly the early phases of life which, right into our own time, have been, and remain, the time for education and training. The importance of lifelong learning cannot, however, be limited to the spheres of education and training policy alone. Its success also depends, in large measure, upon labour-market policy and upon the successful dissemination of science and technology. Lifelong learning begins where schooling, or basic education, leaves off, and this is where the first and, in my view, also the greatest weakness of this wonderful initiative is to be found. Lifelong learning can only work if there is a change to the way in which, and above all the pace at which, basic education under the original educational systems is adapted. In a knowledge society, one of the main functions of schooling should be to offer students methods they need to gain access to large amounts of information, to understand this information and to transform it into knowledge. Syllabuses, or the means by which learning has so far been imparted, must be fundamentally altered. I do not of course want to interfere in the nation states, but this is, nonetheless, an idea which we ought to explore communally in this European Community. Instead, the direction taken should be an individual one, but with social components. We need to learn more about arguing critically, about increasing students’ self-confidence and about increasing their ability to express themselves in language. Skills of this kind will become ever more important alongside instrumental skills such as the ability to write, to acquire other languages and to do arithmetic. One goal must be to enable pupils constantly to update their knowledge and skills so that they are neither able nor willing to view a diploma or certificate as the end of a learning process or as a seal of approval upon something finally completed. Our society must break away from the outdated system of school, work and pension. Lifelong learning begins, then, with the reform of our schooling. The individual must learn for him or herself. That is not something it lies within our power to bring about, but we can do a lot to help bring it about, for the population of Europe is not, of course, just a human resource for the European labour market, but a wealth of marvellous individuals. Allow me to give a personal example by way of conclusion. I know a joiner in a small suburb of Vienna where the prejudice is still somewhat commonly held that anyone who works with their hands must not be very well educated. This joiner is between 40 and 50 years of age, speaks four languages and is known as something of a philosopher. A Europe of people like that would be my ideal.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10021.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10021.txt','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian Greens and their counterparts in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone; the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today\'s debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have; it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe\'s sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100210.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100210.txt','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','Madam President, as a member of the European Parliament from Salzburg, allow me to start by thanking you for your words of acknowledgement and comfort yesterday. When the memorial service of what was the worst disaster to befall my country over recent years is held in Salzburg Cathedral on Friday, I know that this Parliament will be among the mourners and I thank you for your words of sympathy and comfort for the relatives. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after nine months\' work and a long struggle for consensus, we now have a draft European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today is the day we have to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this Charter and your rapporteurs recommend that plenary adopt and vote in favour of this Charter of Fundamental Rights. This recommendation is born of a firm conviction. Like many of you, I too regret that we are only allowed to say yes or no and are unable to send the Council any other political message which might have been called for in this context in order to express the critical support of this House for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is but a first step and is still a far cry from what Parliament demanded of this political project in March of this year. What we must also remember here is what gives this Charter its value, assuming that it is adopted. I think that it grants one initial fundamental right, one unwritten fundamental right and that is people\'s right to know their rights. This fundamental right has now been granted. Vague formulations and legal principles have given way to a clear system of fundamental rights which is binding on all the EU institutions and whenever European law is applied by the Member States. The value of this Charter is that it has transformed rights vested in international law – vested but not binding, vested but not enforceable, vested but not guaranteed – into legal principles, nay into the constitutional principles of the Union itself, setting up a dynamic process which will surely end one day with a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has revolutionised the debate and the history of fundamental and human rights is that, for the first time, social rights have been listed in this Charter on a par with traditional human rights and traditional principles; no Member State has ever done that in its list of fundamental rights. This Charter is also the expression of a common set of basic values for all the candidate countries, for all the countries wishing to join the European Union, and it is precisely in the area of social rights that it sends candidate countries a clear message that they must comply with these social standards. It marks – and I am firmly convinced of this, even if many Heads of State and Government prefer not to admit it – the beginning of the constitutional process which this Parliament has called for so often and with such persistence. I am certain that, with this Charter of Fundamental Rights, we have laid the foundation stone for a future European constitution and constitutional process. I think that is reason enough for us to adopt this Charter, even though there are points at which it may be hard to accept that many rights, many basic rights which Parliament demanded for the people of Europe, and with good cause, have been left out of the Charter. It is hard to see why the right to a fair wage has been left out and why we came up against insurmountable resistance when it came to the right to a decent minimum standard of living, the right to work and the right to housing. This Charter will, I think, need to be supplemented in the future, if it is to become the foundation stone of a European constitution. But that should not deter us from taking this first decisive step. I hope that, even though it can only say yes to this Charter of Fundamental Rights, Parliament will clearly apprise the Council of its demand for this Charter to be made legally binding over coming weeks, so that it can open the way to the European Court of Justice for the citizens of Europe. I hope that this House will emphasise these demands by a large majority in its resolution on Nice. That is all I have to say. I should just like, if you will allow, firstly to thank my co-rapporteur for his committed approach and the vast amount of remarkable work which he carried out and secondly, to thank you for your support. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100211.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100211.txt','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','Mr President, I should like to say one word to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi. All I can say to your speech is: finally! Like many here, I have waited a long time for this clear statement. Mr Moscovici, from the outset the European Parliament has called for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in the Treaties, for it to be made legally binding and – when it is infringed – for people to be given recourse to the European Court of Justice. This demand is not a political position of any kind. It results necessarily from the nature of the matter, from the essence of fundamental rights, and it corresponds to the expectations and requirements of the people. Can you even proclaim rights in earnest without enshrining them in law? Can you proclaim rights in earnest, but at the same time refuse to declare them part of your own law? Can you recognise fundamental rights but deny people the instruments and means to defend them? Each article of this Charter is already enshrined in international conventions, in the constitutions of the Member States, in international law or in EU treaties and protocols. None of them contain anything new. They represent the sum total of a 200-year tradition of fundamental rights in Europe. The only question which needs to be resolved is whether the European Union and its institutions are – like the Member States – going to submit to this European tradition of fundamental rights. Can it, Mr Moscovici, be true that governments are afraid of making long attested rights into internal European law which is actually in force and can be upheld by the courts? If so, would the European Council and the governments of the Member States not be admitting to the whole world that all these international conventions have for decades been regarded as political confessional literature without any legal weight? Would that not then arouse the suspicion amongst the people that the European Council and the governments of the Member States were trying to omit the section on governmental cooperation from the Charter on Fundamental Rights and protect their own power and their own absolute power from principles of the rule of law, judicial supervision and rules on fundamental rights? That is the suspicion which persists! Minister Moscovici, surely it is a little comical for the Heads of State and Government to wish to proclaim rights of defence against the State. It is a matter for parliaments to proclaim fundamental rights and to enshrine them in law. But I believe that in this situation the governments and the European Council would be well advised to regard Parliament\'s vote in favour of legal validity and incorporation into the Treaties as an extremely weighty argument and to accede to this demand. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100212.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100212.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, as an Austrian MEP, to start by expressing my gratitude for the possibility of prompt and speedy help. These sad events have brought us closer to achieving the proximity to our citizens for which we have often longed. It has been possible to give Europe a slightly better image. Brussels, that bureaucratic monster, seems to embody solidarity, and may that not remain merely an outward show. Disasters have more than a merely national dimension. European solidarity is called for, and the EU has come up with the right response. Alongside the countless victims, whom we mourn, there are so many individuals and families on the brink of ruin; we have businesses both small and large, farmers, the environment, agriculture, public services, historic buildings, art treasures, including in the candidate countries, in need of prompt and speedy aid, given on a joint basis and without strings attached. It is of little interest to the public whence the money comes and how we do all the restructuring. We have to tackle this promptly, speedily and swiftly. Aid must be visible. Turning to the follow-up measures and to the long-term measures, I would like to underline what my fellow-Members have said, namely that climate change has become a brutal reality. Man-made climate change has arrived. Mr Barón Crespo said that we must have greater humility where nature is concerned, but to do so demands more effective action, more effective political action, on our part. Commissioner Barnier repeatedly emphasised the need for preventive measures. Not only are these necessary and cheaper, they also take greater care of the environment. I hope – and it is in these terms that I appeal to all the Member States, to the Commission and to this House – that these do not merely express pious aspirations, but will be implemented in all relevant policy areas. It is in the light of this that we should give ourselves time to engage in detailed discussion of the Disaster Fund. There is not much point in simply blundering into the rebuilding of what has been destroyed if we have not previously gathered all the available information we need, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. We simply have to rebuild in a sustainable way. Public expectations of this EU of ours, of this community of solidarity, have grown and will carry on growing. So congratulations on these ad hoc measures; we should be equally zealous in identifying the structures for the future, for our solidarity should be not only with those who are the victims now, but with everyone, and not only today, but also tomorrow. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100213.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100213.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Karamanou for cooperating in such a straightforward and excellent way. I know that we all had to work very quickly on this document, and at that time she was under additional pressure because of commitments at national level. She has already mentioned very many points, and I would just like to say that, as regards content, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was in agreement, as it was with the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We only differed on a formal detail. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, we are also requesting that this Initiative of the Republic of Finland should be withdrawn. I am certain that it was very well intended, but it has not been thought through sufficiently. Legally speaking, it has thrown up more questions than it has supplied explanations. I would like to add a few important points. An initiative of this kind should not mean that people can just be shipped back and forth within our territory. Furthermore, as Mrs Karamanou has just said, this represents a programme singularly lacking in solidarity between the Member States. With regard to readmission agreements, they should not be used as a possible way of twisting the arms of countries in receipt of development aid by saying that they will only receive development aid and funds or cooperation if they also sign readmission agreements. This is bordering on blackmail. Last but not least, I would like to say that the readmission of persons illegally residing in our territory is another problem that can only be solved jointly, by working together to fight the root causes and to finally address the issues of integration and asylum in cooperation.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100214.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100214.txt','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','Madam President, Mr Prodi, almost everyone who has spoken has asked – as you yourself have also done – why the EU\'s image is not what we expect, and why people have ever less faith in it. I am always surprised that this is commented on in a wounded tone as if we were misunderstood, as if all this were unfair, and even the answers on this subject have a very paternalistic ring about them. They say that it is all about explaining things better to the public and presenting our policies to them more clearly. Unlike Mr Swoboda, I do not think that we have really made any progress in this area. The concept of good governance is very vague, and people do not really understand what you are promising them. You are promising transparency, openness and consultation, but that is not what is at stake here, Mr Prodi. The major misunderstanding – I might almost say a misunderstanding of historical proportions – is that this Commission does not have any conception of European democracy. It has no conception at all of democracy at supranational level. All these paternalistic ideas that you have presented here miss the point that you do not have the courage – and have not had the courage for years – to highlight the democratic deficits of the European Union with sufficient clarity, and to recognise that the Commission must forego some power if such a thing as European democracy is to exist, and that you need to work alongside this Parliament on many key issues, for example on preparing a constitutional process and the main elements of that process. No, genuinely tackling the dissatisfaction that exists would mean addressing the state of crisis which exists as regards legitimacy. We govern people with regulations because we do not have the courage to say that we have been making laws for years now. We call them regulations because the democratic legitimacy of these laws is very fragile, because the separation of powers has not been achieved, because the principle of openness of legislation has not been achieved, because the process of committing the administration to laws has not been achieved, and because instead there is disproportionate scope for discretion, which cannot be reconciled with democratic principles, because we have an irregular administration in many areas, such as the committee structure. It is not regular, there are no staff regulations, there are no clear loyalties, and the processes for appointing staff in these areas are by no means transparent and are easy to manipulate. Mr President, you cannot reconcile the idea of a good technocracy with a debate on democracy. Just as there is no such thing as a good dictatorship, there is also no such thing as a good technocracy. You will have to address the issue of a European democracy and the position of the Commission in this process.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100215.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100215.txt','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','Mr President, Mr Maat\'s report is an important tool for thinking globally and acting more locally in agricultural and environmental policy. Your report, Mr Maat, deserves our full support, as it does not make any compromises to the detriment of animal welfare and again emphatically brings to the light of day deficiencies which have long been well known. There are particular expectations of the report since the vote in plenary which cut the budget for the export refund regulation. The agreement with which this met naturally gives grounds for hope that the Maat report will be adopted as a whole, especially as it has made past misdemeanours in animal transport policy particularly apparent. There are a number of points I would like to make, but time is too short. Let me perhaps just say in conclusion that checks and supervision must be improved, and the amounts levied in fines must be harmonised and raised to a level that will act as a deterrent for transport businesses. The same should apply to sanctions imposed on Member States. We are all acquainted with the problems, the European public is right to be sharply critical of the European institutions and of the fifteen governments. This report is to be highly valued also from the point of view of enlargement. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, it is high time that action were taken.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100216.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100216.txt','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.','Mr President, I wish to table another oral amendment. Have no fear: it does not take up any new issues. I have noted that one of the amendments has been incorrectly translated, and I do not think it accurately reflects the opinion of the Committee. The text of item 8, which I have also forwarded to you, should properly read as follows: \'considers that, in the area of collective exercise of rights, the enlargement of the European Union means that there is a need for suitable measures and that action may be required\'. I think Members need have no qualms about voting for this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100217.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100217.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the denial of democracy and a social dimension in European integration is creating conflicts. What is our response? Countless young people have waited all summer for this first session of the European Parliament. In Genoa, they encountered a state and a Europe which have deeply traumatised them. Their trauma is heightened every day that we fail to give them a satisfactory response. What is this Parliament’s response? On the first day, Mr Poettering congratulated Mr Berlusconi. The Christian Democrats and right-wingers in this House have rejected the resolution and made it clear that they will also reject a committee of enquiry. Let me make it clear what they are identifying themselves with: police violence, systematic brutality and even torture in the prisons or at the time of arrest, hundreds of arbitrary arrests, sexual harassment, and Nazi slogans in the police stations. I was in Genoa for a week. I visited the prisons. I spoke to the people in charge, and I took notes for ten hours with people who had been systematically abused and mistreated, in some cases for up to thirty hours. Yet you want to sweep everything under the table! The Christian Democrats are allowing the Italian right to dictate the course of today’s debate. One of them even had the gall to say that there is no evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, please vote for an enquiry. We will provide bags full of evidence of hundreds of cases of torture, abuse, brutality and excesses by the police. This is not merely a matter for the Italian police, for these young people all over Europe have waited for this first session, hopeful that the guardians of fundamental rights sit here in this House and that this House will not remain silent or make common cause with Italy’s rightist government. Let me say a few bitter words as an Austrian. What would have happened if these appalling events at a summit had taken place in Austria a year ago? One dead, 500 injured, 470 arrested and imprisoned, with 90% of them having to be released later due to lack of evidence because the police had picked them up at random as much as 50 km outside Genoa and trumped up evidence against them. This has a European dimension, and this House must address the issue…. (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100218.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100218.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our hats are on fire as we say in Austria, but unfortunately the very fact that this is a burning issue means that there is no time for joking. The nuclear power station in Temelin is being commissioned earlier than was agreed or was expected, and it is not intended to carry out the environmental impact assessment until some time after the fuel elements have been installed, making it a pointless exercise. This is also happening against the wishes of the Czech Environment Minister, against the wishes of a large part of the Czech population and in spite of an urgent request from the German and Austrian Environment Ministers for detailed information on the safety arrangements. Obviously, the Czech Republic still has more time to implement the acquis communautaire in full, but people might well have doubts about whether the Czech Republic is willing even now to start taking on board these aspects of European policy which are of fundamental importance for its citizens and for environment policy. There is no need for me to describe the concerns felt by those living in the adjoining areas. The whole thing could happen as early as next week. I think that the European Parliament also ought to speak out on this. I am rather torn. I am Austrian and yet as a European from the adjoining area I obviously also wish us to proceed together on this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100219.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100219.txt','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','Mr President, what kind of generosity would it be that confined itself to the large groups? It would be a power-based generosity that I would not like to think you capable of! Ladies and gentlemen, if we are to resolve the crisis of European integration it is time to speak openly. We are witnessing and involved in a struggle for power in Europe. It is not a matter of federal state versus confederation or about a superstate versus subsidiarity. It is about democracy versus the national executives’ desire for power, versus a Europe of clandestine cooperation between governments and de facto legislation by governments. It is about transforming the European project from a thing of administrative elites into a res publica . The Intergovernmental Conference in Nice was a failure. The EU has become neither more democratic nor more capable of action nor ready for enlargement. The Intergovernmental Conference has proved to be an unsuitable instrument. The heads of state and government are making Europe into a bazaar of national interests. At half past three in the morning between their calvados and the fireplace they exchange fish quotas for basic rights, agreement on enlargement for farm subsidies. After Nice they called for a celebration not for what they had done for Europe but for what they had deprived Europe of. Instead of doing their duty under the Treaty of moving Europe forward, they turned out to be advocates of national identity while expressing surprise about the likes of Haider and Berlusconi. The same people who failed in Nice now want to be not only government and legislator and lords of the Treaties, but also the creators of Europe’s constitution! Honourable Members, it is time for Europe’s parliaments to remember why they are really there, that it is for them and them alone to create a constitution. It is time to show Europe’s princes that there is another Europe, a European democracy and a Europe that is a social area. It is the hour of the parliaments. It is the duty of the parliaments and I am glad that this Parliament is forging an alliance of parliaments for a European democracy! Ladies and gentlemen, I am terribly bored with the debate about a federal state or a confederation! We can confidently leave that to the next generation, but not the question of European democracy. That is the challenge if we are one day to be able to say: Vive la République d\'Europe ! Long live the European Republic! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10022.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10022.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups I have always listened to what the European artists say. In my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. Understandably so, when you look at Austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. I will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but I am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the EP\'s proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. I also hope for the Commission\'s support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. And I am also thinking a step ahead. In the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. Collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of Europe when it comes to their rights. The opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the Member States. I have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time I beg this House to show the same European spirit that prevailed this morning. It is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. It is a question of the European art market and all the players involved, and especially the European creative artists. I put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this House.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100220.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100220.txt','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','Mr President, a few months ago, at the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels, it became clear that the Union might fail and that we might revert to the hallowed national egotisms. Everyone shrank back from the consequences of such disintegration, got cold feet and set about looking for ways of getting the good ship Europe afloat again. Mr President, you really ought to interrupt me and ask why I am talking nonsense. This sentence is 20 years old; Spinelli used it in his speech to this House when presenting his draft. I confess that I am shocked by how up-to-date this speech is. As if he were discussing the Convention, he compares the two methods – the drafting of a constitution by a parliament as against the diplomats and ministers at an Intergovernmental Conference. He tells us that we now know the outcomes of these two differing approaches. As the negotiations progressed, the national outlook irresistibly gained the upper hand, the European outlook has steadily faded away, and we end up with the proposal that, in effect, action by states should be emphasised to the detriment of action at a supranational level. As you can see, I am sharing my speaking time with Spinelli. There is no better way of expressing what has happened over the past few months, in Ecofin, in Brussels, in Naples: the old struggle for a European democracy as opposed to the Europe of the State chanceries, bureaucracies, governments and their claims to absolute power. Spinelli appeals to this House in these words: ‘In taking this initiative, we derive our legitimacy from our status as the citizens’ and the community’s elected representatives, as those who bear the actual responsibility for the European democracy that is coming into being.’ I have found it very exciting to follow the argument in this speech, for he is trying to persuade this House not to send the draft to the Council or to the Intergovernmental Conference, but to be ratified by the national parliaments. He, too, was only a matter of months away from an election, and he was speaking in a February, the same month as the decisive moment in the constitution-making process, and I regret the fact that Parliament has not found it in itself to adopt this Convention draft and submit it to the national Parliaments for ratification. He goes on to say how ashamed he is of a parliament that will in future be powerless to act decisively in giving Europe a constitution, how he shrinks back from setting foot in it. He also has something fundamental to say about unanimity and the constitution: ‘If we were to allow ourselves misgivings about the possibility of starting before everyone has acceded, we would be leaving the decision in the hands, not of those who are most determined, but of those who are the most hesitant, and, indeed, potential opponents, and would thereby be condemning the whole enterprise to virtually certain failure.’ Twenty years ago, Altiero Spinelli called on Parliament to tell the people what was at stake, that being European democracy and the development of political unity. I will close with some words from Jean Monnet, words that I would urge all governments and ministers to bear constantly in mind, the most up-to-date words that can possibly be said in today’s constitution-making process: ‘We are not coordinating states; we are bringing people together!’ (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100221.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100221.txt','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','Madam President, my group also salutes the Portuguese Presidency\'s cooperation with the European Parliament and thanks it for this. As far as the results of the Feira summit are concerned, however, we are rather more sceptical. In recent weeks a debate has broken out between the governments of the Member States about the future of Europe, and even about having a constitution. In stark contrast to these competing visions, however, is the way in which preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are shaping up. It even seems that the images of the distant future conjured up by a good many ministers are actually intended to conceal the European Council\'s inability to resolve the issues it has set itself. Since Maastricht this European Council has been putting off the problems, the unresolved questions and the necessary reforms. Many of these were already left unresolved in Amsterdam. The public\'s confidence in the EU has now reached an all-time low in all the Member States. In eastern Europe frustration is growing at the EU\'s hesitant attitude. The real initiatives – highlighted by Parliament in all of its resolutions for years – are in some cases not even being discussed in the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. The most important objective is surely to create and develop a European democracy and to eliminate the democratic deficit. In Feira we did not see a decision to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty, one of the decisions most eagerly anticipated by the people of Europe. An alternative approach to the Intergovernmental Conference, which this Parliament has repeatedly advocated, was not even mentioned. I think that, instead of making people want to enshrine the prevailing system in a future constitution, the European Council will have given everyone cause to consider the system\'s gross shortcomings, manifest in the current Intergovernmental Conference. A procedure for adopting a constitution has not been planned or launched; there is barely a definite notion of doing so. Questions remain about parliamentary and judicial control in the second and third pillars, as they do about the status of European parties and so on. Neither are there any tangible plans for meeting the second challenge, to create a social dimension to European integration. I believe that all of this has serious consequences for the degree of acceptance of the EU by those on the inside and also for the expectations which the eastern European countries have of us. We still have a few more months, but the work will have to pick up speed and increase in gravity and depth at a much greater rate than we have seen so far!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100222.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100222.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems the upgrading is inadequate seismologically and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100223.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100223.txt','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','Mr President, I would like to express my personal admiration for rapporteurs Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. I would like them to know that my scepticism, and any decision on my part to reject this report, is no reflection on them, but on this House, which does not have the backbone to confront the European Council with its own vision of what the future should hold for European integration.  In terms of power politics, or following a constitutional line of thought, it is quite clear what the Council wants. It wants Europe to be run by the executive, to be under the leadership of national governments, a bring-and-buy for national interests. It wants the basic model for European integration to be intergovernmental cooperation. The European Council wants Europe to be under the leadership of a handful of States, it wants Europe to be run by a board of directors, and to pursue a nineteenth century style policy aimed at striking a balance amongst the States of Central Europe. The Council does not see a democratic deficit; it sees a lack of efficiency at worst. Separation of powers, public scrutiny of legislation, parliamentarianism, unrestricted legal supervision on the part of the European Court of Justice, binding fundamental rights, strengthening of the original European institutions – the Commission, Parliament and the European Court of Justice – none of these matters are of concern to the Council.  It is the task of Parliament to stand up to the Council and to present it with its own vision. Parliament must pluck up the courage to vie with the Council when it comes to determining the future of European integration. This is about nothing less than the rediscovery of democracy in the supranational sphere. It is about nothing less – and this is, or would be Parliament’s task – than making European unification public property. We have a long way to go before we achieve this.  If you demand a constitutional process but satisfy yourself with the division of the Treaties into two parts, then this constitutional process is already at an end! If you accept without criticism that not only does the Council see itself as a legitimate representative of the States, it also claims to represent the people by virtue of the double majority, thereby depriving Parliament of its legitimacy, then we still have a long way to go before……  (The President cut the speaker off)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100224.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100224.txt','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','Mr President, for the cool and collected, the year 2000 is of course a year like any other, but it is not only romantics who, at the beginning of a new century, cannot escape a certain magic inspiring them to rise above the daily round of business and approach their own future in a creative spirit. I very much regret, Commissioner Barnier, that the preparatory work for the Intergovernmental Conference contains no trace of that turn-of-the-century magic and of an ability to entertain new visions. I also regret that, quite unlike the panegyrics delivered in this House, the deliberations of the Committee of Wise Men revealed no such visionary courage either. When it came to the whys and wherefores of reforming the European institutions, reference was made to the technocratic concepts of increased efficiency and the ability to act, but not so much as a glance was directed towards the very urgent and necessary matter of establishing a European democracy. The Committee of Wise Men wastes not a word of criticism on the second and third pillars of this democratic no-man’s land of intergovernmental cooperation. Nor does it hazard any proposal to include this area among those which are to be subject to democratic reform. Nor is any thought wasted on the Intergovernmental Conference as a method, which we now all know is in no position to bring the European idea any closer to fruition. Involving Parliament is, in truth, not one of its concerns. Nor does the report of the Committee of Wise Men contain a single mention of the social dimension of the European Union, which is a prerequisite of a European democracy. On the question of foreign and security policy, the report wastes a lot of time on developing security policy, as well as policies for governments and heads of state, and forgets in the process that security policy is a function of foreign policy. ( Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100225.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100225.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Fourtou for her openness, which was exemplary. Right from the start all the shadow rapporteurs were involved in the discussions and also in the trialogue. That is something I have rarely experienced in this House. And she did that long before her family circumstances were seized upon by the press. I do not wish to comment on that now, I shall leave that to my colleague. So much for the form. There are problems, however, as has already been mentioned, particularly by the previous speaker. That this directive is needed is something on which everyone – including Members of this House – agrees. So do the players in the market, ranging from the telecommunications industry to consumer protection organisations, from the pharmaceutical industry to generic drug manufacturers, from artists to content producers. We need a good directive. I believe, though, that the compromise that we have negotiated has not entirely succeeded in addressing these many and diverse needs and concerns in a single directive. There are two specific policy areas where reasonable agreement is important. One is that we wish to limit the scope of the directive somewhat, to use for commercial purposes; the other area is that of patents. There is certainly scope for debate about patents and also about common practice in Europe. But it remains a fact that we do not have a European-level patent, and we do not want to use the implementing directive to pave the way for one through the back door. This needs to be discussed very carefully; it is not such a simple matter. I therefore urge you to give a large measure of support to these two amendments on patents and the scope of the directive. I believe that this directive, this compromise, will then have been sufficiently improved for us to jointly adopt it as a compromise before the end of this parliamentary term.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100226.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100226.txt','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100227.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100227.txt','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','Mr President, the debate on the flood disasters has shown Europe to the public in a new light – as a community of solidarity. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bonus that we should not carelessly fritter away. Great changes and challenges are ahead of us. The crucial issues are evident – to us, but not to the European public. The man in the street in Vienna would say that there is something missing from our information policy. It is precisely on this area that a large number of amendments have been submitted. The pressure to inform is huge, and that information must be one-sided – glossy brochures, ivory-tower conferences and websites – no matter how inventive, brilliantly conceived and really informative. It reminds me of something I frequently experienced in my professional life. If the public don\'t come to the theatre, the theatre must go to the public. We have to go out to people, to universities, into schools, and the Member States cannot be discharged from their obligations in this respect. We are all open to that criticism. We should inform each other better, as the lack of information gives rise to misunderstandings, and it is precisely those that we have least need of. That brings me back to cultural policy. You always hear it said, in a cynical tone, that in Brussels there is money lying all over the streets, and you just have to pick some up. Well, when it comes to culture, you can\'t talk in terms of collecting money and certainly not of just picking it up – counting the pennies is more like it. Bureaucracy in this area is simply unmanageable. Although we have only limited competence in it, I wonder what became of the three institutions\' will to do something about cultural policy. It is far too weak. Rather than promote European content in this globalised age in which we live, we are supporting the big boys – big countries, big co-productions. That way, the little guys, the smaller countries, and the lesser-used languages lose out. What I want to ask the Commission is this: a legal basis for the financing of the A-30 lines is being planned, but what conception does the Commission have of it? Is there to be a multi-annual plan? Is there to be an interinstitutional working party, in order that the criteria in the individual areas can be defined jointly and more exactly?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100228.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100228.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Greek Presidency fell at a difficult time, and it has been a success. I should like to congratulate you on this achievement, Mr President-in-Office. Incidentally, you have proved that the principle of a six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council is a creative and enriching force, and this is something that the future permanent Council presidency will have to prove. The Chalkidiki Summit was also a success. This was not a foregone conclusion. The Heads of State or Government came together and nearly all of them had a long list of national ambitions that, even at the last minute, they wanted to salvage from the Convention\'s draft constitution. But when our Heads of State or Government saw each other they were deeply moved and left the Convention\'s draft in peace. This was a great success, except for the moment when it was decided to regard the Laeken mandate as fulfilled and to inform us – and I should now like to address this point, Mr President-in-Office – that Part III now only required some purely technical work. This was the first that we had heard of this: otherwise, why on earth are we continuing our work in the Convention in July? Because there was no consensus on the Praesidium\'s draft. Hundreds upon hundreds of amendments – 1 700 of them – have been tabled and not on technical issues. Essentially a very clear question is at stake in this work: namely whether we are going to deliver on the promises, values and aims set out in the first and second parts, whether we are actually going to make the competences, responsibilities and principles of democracy, that we enshrined by consensus in the first and second parts, a reality, or whether we are simply setting ourselves new objectives without freeing Europe from the chains of the past. I should like to illustrate how critical this situation is with the aid of a few examples. In the first part, of course, we declare our overarching support for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, but in the third part there are still key areas where only the Council can legislate, for example on European social policy. National parliaments lose the right to ratify international treaties without this House gaining that right. In one of the most difficult cases, concerning the reduced powers of the European Court of Justice to supervise one of the most sensitive areas in the constitution, that of police and judicial cooperation on home affairs, 80% of the Convention have demanded the deletion of the exemptions. No policy without judicial control, no law without Parliament – these are clearly not technical issues, but issues of self-determination and the definition of Europe. The ability to act is a key principle, but in the last few nights of the Convention whole swathes of policy disappeared from the majority voting list and reappeared under unanimity. We were put under pressure by governments. The majority of the Convention wants more; the people of Europe want more. We know that the European public demand far more of Europe than the governments of Europe are willing to give. The Convention does not need to make technical decisions here; it needs to achieve fundamental reforms. Take public services of general interest, cornerstones of European social policy; the vast majority of the Convention want them to be explicitly protected in the constitution. So far this request has been turned down. I am not saying this to belittle the work of the Convention or the current draft, but to make this House aware that a great deal of what we have enshrined in the first and second parts still needs to be delivered and that we will not be keeping our promises to the people if we do not make one further effort to bring about a genuine reform in the third part. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100229.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100229.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, for a member of the Greens, seven and a half minutes speaking time is a real shock to the system – I do not think we have ever had so much time. You understand the importance of the subject. I shall not repeat everything that has already been said and I may therefore not need the full seven and a half minutes. You may perhaps even see that as an advantage. For me personally, cross-border fixed book prices would represent a possible answer to the possible question: “What exactly is a European cultural policy? What does it mean and what could it do?” Apart from the market and competition, we also have Article 151. This article, as we know, contradicts Article 81. As Mr Rothley has already mentioned, an exemption would have been possible. There was a transition period, but there was no exemption. My question is, was that a political or was that a purely legal decision? Is this Europe of the regions, are the slogans “cultural diversity” and “the Europe of common language areas” no more than election promises? Is no serious work being carried out on them? From a purely legal point of view, Commissioner, you must intervene in this case, in the case of cross-border fixed book prices. I do not understand, however, why Article 81 is valid for culture, but Article 151 is not valid for competition. The paragraphs have different weights, legal texts are interpreted and the side which has more weight also has more merit. Such is life. But I see politics as an attempt to even things out, as an effort to strike a balance. I am against neither the market nor competition, even if it may appear so. As an artist I was exposed to competition day in, day out, I still am and sometimes it is a matter of keeping one’s head above water. Perhaps that is precisely why I am in favour of competition, but I am also in favour of a European cultural policy. However, I now have a problem Commissioner. Sometimes we are not talking about the same things because we are using different studies. You have just reminded us that the United Kingdom, like Ireland, has no book price fixing, despite the fact that they are the same language area. You are forgetting that the huge American market also dominates these two countries to a large extent. You are also forgetting the culturally different approach to books and that there is now a different approach to books in each Member State. I am countering with arguments from a French study, which the Commission has only accepted in part, if at all. You have been so kind as to promise to let me have a list of your studies, the studies on which you base your information and make your decisions, because as long as we are using different studies, we will be talking about different things and will not arrive at any conclusions. In my view, neither the Council nor the Commission has taken over the cultural brief in this European Union in toto . This is not meant as a slight on the promotion programmes, God forbid. They are wonderful, they are a huge step in the right direction. That is a hackneyed phrase, but I really mean it. It is not enough, however; a European cultural policy is missing. The European dimension of the promotional culture programme is embodied in books to the highest degree and it does not cost the Union a penny extra, it only costs the consumer or rather the ‘dear reader’. Books are not therefore just goods; they also have a cultural value, on that we are all agreed. But what is the Commission doing about this? I too am unable to absolve you, Commissioner for Competition, from responsibility for cultural policy. We must not all decide strictly in a single direction without looking first to the left or right for ways of bringing things together. I understand that a book is not a car and I thought that we had a legal basis for that. However, that appears not to be the case. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to consider our motion for a resolution jointly. We are all agreed that this could be a sign that competition does not behave as culture’s adversary, but as culture’s partner and that it can behave in support of cultural policy. It can also be a sign that what we might call, on the basis of the French law, ‘European’ fixed book prices also give the Nation States a clear hint that they should assume responsibility rather than giving the standard response: ‘that is being decided in Brussels’. Then you could also take a huge step in the right direction! (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10023.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10023.txt','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty. Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!','Mr President, if we decide on this Rule of Procedure then it will be easier to combat fraud and to include the Parliament. That would be good, as we have fought for it. However, what we have not fought for and are most resolutely against and where we see the position of Parliament and of the independent mandate jeopardised to a great extent, is if investigations can be initiated against freely elected Members of Parliament, not only on suspicion but on mere supposition if a system of compulsory informing is set up here, if not for fraud and corruption but for overall authorisation, and I quote, “to intervene in serious incidents in the performance of one’s duty\". Just imagine, that investigations against Members of Parliament for serious incidents in the performance of their duties – a completely fabricated undefined legal concept that contradicts the constitutional tradition of each of the fifteen Member States – could be introduced, that investigations could be initiated if Members of Parliament contravene duties comparable with the disciplinary law for career public servants, a disciplinary law we do not have and comparable duties that do not exist! That is an overall authorisation of an authority that not only exposes the Members of Parliament to all kinds of informing but which opens a system of informing and political agitation that makes a mockery of an independent mandate and a free Parliament. That has nothing to do with combating fraud. The Council has attacked the position of the Parliament at its core and damaged it!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100230.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100230.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this House will today back the Convention’s draft, and do so by a large majority. We agree overwhelmingly that the best thing about the Convention was that it was not an Intergovernmental Conference. It was largely parliamentary in character, it was held in public, it engaged in dialogue with the public and civil society, and it had many months in which to do its work. The worst thing about the Convention was that it ended up turning into an Intergovernmental Conference after all. Its conclusion was determined by negotiations and haggling behind the scenes, with nations’ own interests being played off against the European interest, and threats of vetoes being used. The Convention was successful when it was free. It followed constitutional logic in producing a draft on the future of Europe. Out of it emerged the draft of a European democracy, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a republican legal order for Europe, capacity to act and the possibility of a new role in the world. Success eluded the Convention whenever it bowed to governmental pressure and lost itself in a thicket of conflicting interests. Hence we have no European social contract, no European social order, too few decisions taken by majority vote and we still, among other things, have laws made by the Council. The question at issue was not what we could do for Europe, but what we could deny Europe. Many governments are now calling for a ‘real’ Intergovernmental Conference; this is a dangerous threat, and one founded on very dubious legitimacy. Mathematically speaking, a plus and a minus add up to a minus. Where is the sense in forcing as chronically unsuccessful a method as an Intergovernmental Conference upon one so successful as the Convention? The outcome, the end result, of this simple arithmetic will be that of an IGC, a ‘Nice Mark II’ – not the highest common denominator, but the lowest, and were the governments not represented at the Convention, and at the highest level? Did they not brutally force through their positions? Were you not at the Convention, Commissioner Barnier? Did you not agree to a great compromise? Can the Commission really take on the historic responsibility of enabling the governments to unilaterally change this historic consensus for the sake of their own interests? In doing so, are you not enabling the forces of destruction to absolve themselves? Commissioner, your place is alongside the European Parliament as it fights for this compromise. You will have to answer for that; it is perhaps the gravest error in the whole of its period in office for which the Commission will have to account. What can the Intergovernmental Conference do without demolishing this consensus, without – behind closed doors – perpetuating the same old horse-trading that we saw at Nice? It should accept the Convention’s draft, it should deal, in the spirit of the majority in the Convention, with those issues that the governments blocked, those on which there is no consensus, especially the revision clause. That was something on which the Convention could come to no agreement; the Intergovernmental Conference should make it possible for future amendments to the Constitution to be made by a democratic majority. It should, moreover, resolve the inconsistencies between parts 1 and 3, which are largely the result of governmental intervention. If we promise the people the social market economy in part 1, but the free, untrammelled competitive society in part 3, then we are not being honest with the public. If we promise full employment in part 1, but only a high level of employment in part 3, that amounts to a trick, and it will not build confidence in Europe. If, at this historic moment, we make the wrong choice, we will be leading Europe into a crisis. If, after wrecking the methodology of the Intergovernmental Conference, we go on to wreck and discredit the methodology of the Convention, we will be left with nothing. What will we then be able to do when the crisis strikes? Hard though this compromise may have been for all of us, we should defend the Convention on the future of Europe. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100231.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100231.txt','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.','Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance wishes to add its voice to the chorus of approval for everyone who has worked so long and hard to enable us to inch forward module by module. All of the previous speakers, and above all you, Mr President-in-Office, were right in saying that we need to see all this in the light of the e-Europe initiative and of the internal market. I would like to express my appreciation of your efforts not only personally, but also on behalf of my group, and I know that sometimes things get sorted out in the corridor, over a coffee or in other informal ways, over a sumptuous meal, for example. I am sorry to tell you that I have a bit of stomach ache. Not because I have spent so much time recently with lobbyists from one side or another over sumptuous dinners, but because depending on how you look at it, what is on offer is either too much or too little. Too much in the sense mentioned by Mr van Velzen: ‘eat up, that is all you are getting’, or too little in as much as when we reach compromises we have to accept proposals from the European Parliament being slightly amended, with small, nebulous changes involving little words like ‘shall’ and ‘may’, which are then taken out, so that I suddenly feel that the amendments are not so minor any more. I would like to briefly pick out one point, as I had an excellent exchange of information throughout the whole period of cooperation with Mr Harbour. I would like to highlight just one point in the context of the Universal Service Directive, and that concerns consumers with disabilities. We are not giving anything away here. We live in a society which for reasons of solidarity and on economic grounds takes whatever steps need to be taken. What is at stake here is that after many years we are giving some very important signals in this area, in order to give people with disabilities full access to the information and communication society as fully integrated consumers. This political willingness, this political awareness and this political will would simply not have existed to the same extent 20 years ago. I just wanted to mention that point to demonstrate to you all that time is a great healer. However, that will certainly not cure my stomach ache. I think that because of this stomach ache I would very gladly vote for this compromise, because, just like all of you, I am in favour of this internal market, and I would have been happier if it had already been established now, not at some point in the near future. However, I too will close by mentioning the crucial points that other Members have already touched upon, and which I do not really think are solved in the compromise: interoperability, digital television, transmission obligations, and Article 6 of the framework directive. Whether this fare is too much or too little, I think it takes us forward an inch or two. I would be very interested to hear what else you may have to say to us, and then, even if it upsets my stomach, we would be happy to say ‘yes’.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100232.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100232.txt','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Austria the Conciliation Committee’s decision was received with anger and dismay by the government, Parliament, the entire population, by all parties and all the media. There can be no talk of electioneering here. I believe we could fill the empty chairs in this room thousands of times over today with people wanting to tell you of their anger and consternation. It is the first time in the Union’s legal history that the vital interests of a Member State have been treated in this way. Many of you speak of forbearance – think about the word: Austria is treated with forbearance, privileges are granted, prerogatives are extended. Many of you who speak in such terms seem to believe we built the Alps out of spite and we filled our countryside with the continent’s most sensitive plants so that we can stir up national hysteria. (Laughter)  What people in Austria feel is that there is a tremendous danger, and it does not involve only Austrian interests. It is the danger that the right to the free movement of goods, with which we all agree, is becoming a religious right violating the human right to health and protection of the environment and that we are only taking accompanying measures but not guaranteeing people their basic right to health and environment. I will not comment further on this never-ending story with its pitiful outcome. But what you are doing today, Mr President, is raising a question of legal policy. You are turning an environmental conflict, an ecological disaster, into a legal conflict that is unique in history. Austria does not want that solution. Nobody wants it. Do you really want to force this regulation on us against this country’s will, a regulation that is eyewash, camouflage, and which Austria will not enforce? Is that really your intention? (Restrained applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100233.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100233.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your statements today; for us they are a really important step forward in the joint voluntary procedure, as Ruth Hieronymi has pointed out. We have not raised the question of comprehensive interoperability in the telecommunications directive, but we know that it is of huge importance to Europe, which sets standards in media policy. The Commission and the regulators, like the European Parliament, were not perhaps decisive enough in the early days. But we are now, because time is running out. The summer of 2004 will be here before we know it. Let us call it guidance that we need in this voluntary procedure; what our institutions are waiting for and what we are jointly calling for is a clear media policy message. We have mentioned a single standard. We have consistently avoided the word simple. We do not want to jump the gun. But this is not jumping the gun, it is being logical. As my honourable friend, Mrs Hieronymi said, we could have set one standard that speaks this common language, a single language, in the MHP. We need more clear political signals here. We opted for a single system for mobile telephones and we should do the same here and now. Before the industry invests any more and we have various other APIs which cannot talk to each other as we would like, because the more economic facts, figures and data there are on the table, the harder it will be for politicians to intervene directly here. This common voluntary procedure needs clear signals from us. Again I read a quotation in a technical journal recently in which you pointed out that the Commission can lay down binding European standards here if appropriate freedom of choice for our citizens and interoperability are not achieved by 2004. I do not think it will come to that. We should be able to find a joint solution before then. We need to meet each other half way. A large majority of market players are in favour of MHP and we should say so clearly. I think that is the answer expected of us. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100234.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100234.txt','Mr President, the shadow rapporteurs have reached a new compromise on this point and I should therefore like to withdraw Amendment No 76 on behalf of the Greens. We accept this compromise.','Mr President, the shadow rapporteurs have reached a new compromise on this point and I should therefore like to withdraw Amendment No 76 on behalf of the Greens. We accept this compromise.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100235.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100235.txt','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','Since 1997, though, silence has reigned, but now it seems that I can congratulate Parliament on having, like Sleeping Beauty, woken up. I would like now to speak on behalf of my group. I cannot but underline the arguments of those who have spoken before me, and I would like to pick up two of the significant points they made. Entrepreneurship, on the one hand, has become out of balance with journalistic activity on the other, as it now is also with those who produce creative material. It is for us to restore this balance. The EU, which announced the creation of the internal market as one of its priorities, must assume its political responsibility in this process involving consolidation and concentration. We did not liberalise a few years ago by breaking up media monopolies simply in order to create new media monopolies. Both economic diversity and pluralism in the media are equally under threat. The wide-ranging nature of concentrations merits particular attention. My second point is that one of the pillars of democracy is the separation of powers, something that is of especial concern to my group. Having successfully accomplished the separation of church and state, I believe we ought now to devote our energies to separating political power and the media. I am speaking here of a European official culture, especially on the eve of enlargement. One more practical question for the Commission: in 1997, the directive on media ownership disappeared back into a drawer, quite possibly as a result of political pressure, although we cannot be certain of that. We need a better legal basis at European level, but then we know that; it is a statement we heard all of five years ago, and we do not need to have it repeated. Why, then, has the Commission only now started to do something about it? We are all aware of these problems; they are not new, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Action is needed, O esteemed Commission! I repeat that I support the arguments of those who have preceded me on the floor, and, as Mr Barón Crespo said, media policy is not a party issue. We must not let it become one. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100236.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100236.txt','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.  The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.  Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.  There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.  Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100237.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100237.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this paper from the Commission was an extremely sound document as it was but Mr van Velzen has managed to improve on a number of points in what was already a welcome paper. I would like to congratulate him on having done so. But it is pointless to make liberalisation an end in itself. Hence political objectives must be fulfilled. Liberalisation should benefit subscribers and competition. There are a few points that we definitely still need to address. There has certainly been a drop in prices, however, this has happened in the business sector and there is little or no evidence of it in the case of local calls, roaming, or calls between the fixed network and mobile phones, and vice versa. Therefore this is a clear example of market imperfection. Perhaps it is not cost-effective for new firms to work at this level. Consequently, there is a need for regulations here, otherwise the citizens in more remote regions will be at a disadvantage because they will not be connected, i.e. they will not be part of the universal service. Therefore we are calling for the state to be given the right to intervene. Secondly, we demand a more flexible formulation of universal service, for e-mail and the Internet used to be considered a luxury. These days, people who do not have these services are almost being discriminated against. Accordingly, Internet access ought to be counted as one of the universal services. Thirdly, needless to say, drops in price must not be to the detriment of quality of service. Furthermore, we are agreed on transparency and on the matter of choice. Pre-selection is restrictive for the subscriber and is something they should be able to sue over. Like you, we are in favour of having transmission obligations. You have also taken account of health in recital E, which is a matter particularly dear to the heart of the Greens. By and large, we support your report, however we cannot support 8a or 8b, both of which are new. 8a is contrary to the Amsterdam Protocol No. 32 and to the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive. I have only this to say about 8b new: the ‘television without frontiers’ directive is not the object of this dossier. The guidelines for a common audiovisual policy are discussed in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and specifically in the Veltroni report. This discussion has only just begun and we must not prejudge the outcome.  Last but not least, I would like to issue a rebuke of the Commission for failing to wait for Parliament. It is continuing to work on an independent basis. I just felt that this needed to be said.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100238.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100238.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100239.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100239.txt','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)','Mr President, it is in the nature of fundamental rights that they are not conferred but merely acknowledged, and that fundamental rights are perforce derived from human dignity. The Council\'s refusal to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in law therefore puts us in an absurd situation, in which, on the one hand, fundamental rights are regarded as an inevitable consequence of the recognition of human dignity, whilst, on the other hand, people are denied the chance to exercise their rights. I thank the rapporteur for again making it clear that it is Parliament\'s top priority to incorporate fundamental rights into the European constitution, and indeed that they are a foundation stone without which a constitution is utterly unthinkable. I concur, though, with the comments made by the lady who spoke before me, in that it is not the preamble that I envisage being used for this purpose, but Article 1 of the constitution, but I do not imagine that there are any serious differences between us on this point. I am, secondly, grateful to the rapporteur for his observation that we must not allow the chapter on the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be reopened and renegotiated in the Constitutional Convention, which has no mandate to amend the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If we were to again call the Charter into question, it would damage the credibility of the first Convention as a whole and thus also shatter the method of the Convention as such. Yet there is, to my mind, a certain contradiction – and hence my question to Commissioner Vitorino, who has picked up this point – in the announcement that amendments are to be made to the horizontal provisions, which form an essential part of the stipulations on the scope and effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is perfectly conceivable – and some discussions lead me to suspect it – that an attempt is being made to use the horizontal provisions to limit the Charter\'s scope. Any such attempt must meet with resistance from us. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10024.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10024.txt','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has already adopted a number of directives in the field of copyright. That was good, correct and important. In my opinion, the harmonisation process here has perhaps failed to press on further with necessary reforms, because digitalisation as well as enlargement are challenges that the policy must face up to. So far, so good. Copyright rests on at least three pillars, but also on the enforcement and protection of rights. These two areas must accompany copyright. They can neither make up for lost ground nor correct errors. We still have to wait for the enforcement directive. It is being discussed very actively in the Parliament at present, and has also been discussed in a trialogue. Up until now the Commission has shown no clear intention to undertake such activities in rights protection. We were given a promise just under two years ago. We waited for that promise for a long time. Then Parliament decided to take action and not to wait for that promise to be kept. In the meantime, there is a communication, which apparently will be forwarded to us in the next few weeks. Thank you in advance. During the Christmas holidays, I read in the German press that the Commission is even planning a directive in this area. Good. It is taking a long time, but perhaps it will now be a good directive. Now I would like first and foremost to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who have supported my initiative from the outset; we have debated it in great detail for a very long time, and now I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and the draftsmen of the two opinions. They have not only been helpful, but they have greatly enriched the whole project. As I said, it was a long process. We have talked to the most diverse of networks. We have been open to the needs, problems, questions and suggestions of all involved and discussed them in depth. All involved also means the single market, competition and information society sectors, because copyright is an essential instrument for creators and for right-holders – that was beyond question from the start. I would like to summarise quite briefly here the most important things this report says. We on the Committee on Legal Affairs were of the opinion that there was a need for suitable measures, as I said at the start, not only because of enlargement but actually in order to create a single European market for products protected by copyright and also by related rights. We were also agreed that in so doing we had to remain true to the principles of copyright. I would like to mention here just three essential factors, proper and fair participation in the value chain, that every use should be properly rewarded in accordance with the law applicable and, last but not least, the territoriality principle of copyright. We call on the Directorate-General for Competition to continue to tackle the vertical concentration of the media and of production within the media and to do so with renewed vigour, just like it did at the start of this legislative period. We also ask the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to concern itself with the distribution channels, especially in the media, and with the dominant position of individual branches of industry in this area and to investigate cases of abuse, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, digital  rights  management – we are all familiar with the abbreviation DRM – is a very good and important step in the right direction. We will all be making greater use of this DRM, but it will not be as successful as we want without interoperability. And we must be aware that DRM will not of course be the answer to every problem. As far as the collecting societies themselves are concerned, we are calling for comparable and compatible statutes and practices. If they have not already done so, we want them to stipulate that their function is that of a trustee. We also propose that their activities be legitimised by democratic structures and above all also by an equitable and balanced relationship between the right-holders’ groups involved within a collecting society. We also find that where collecting societies have control mechanisms they are not always compatible across borders and some of them are not very efficient. There are examples at both extremes, both positive and negative. We therefore call for independent, efficient, transparent and expert control mechanisms incorporating all aspects, legal, social, cultural and economic aspects, greater transparency not only to promote competition, of course, but also to benefit all right-holders, all user groups and all consumers, and a duty, not only on collecting societies but also on users, to provide information. We want uniform coding standards in order to better control the circulation of works, and interoperability must be assured here too. The collecting societies themselves have made many proposals for reforms, some of which are really superb. I shall be asking the Commission to include this advice, these reform proposals, in its discussion process now that it is preparing a directive, while always safeguarding the principle or principles of copyright. Last but not least, I would like to say that it is important for all of us to bring about easier access for users, for commercial users and consumers, but always safeguarding the copyright principle. This is a fact-finding paper by the European Parliament, and I think that if, when it comes to the vote today, it is adopted with a similar passion and support as it was in Committee, then this Parliament will have a foundational document on which both it and the next Parliament can build. Sincere thanks once again to all who have helped. It only remains for me to tell you now that when the vote itself comes I shall be bringing an oral amendment which will be concerned only with the language versions. Otherwise, since no amendments have been tabled I can only assume that this afternoon will see this report overwhelmingly approved. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100240.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100240.txt','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','Mr President, the fundamental rights of the people are not merely promises, but are the inalienable rights of each individual, bestowed neither by politicians nor the state, but respected, and derived from human dignity; and these rights are only effective when they are the law of the land, enshrined in laws by Parliament and upheld by courts. This knowledge is intrinsic to modern democracy and is at the heart of the constitution of each Member State. The European Council is violating this fundamental consensus within Europe, by refusing to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties, make it legally binding and denying the citizens, whose rights are being infringed, access to the European Court of Justice. Fundamental rights constitute an essential defence against the state. It is therefore ironic that the Heads of State and Government should be the ones making the decisions about the fundamental rights of the citizens of Europe. Is it any wonder that these heads of governments refuse to submit to the regime prescribed by the Charter, and make it legally binding? The Council’s claim to power is the main stumbling block in the current constitutional process and it is the root cause of the Union’s democratic deficit. Not only do the Heads of State and Government want to be the de facto and sole legislators of the Union; they also want to be its government. Who can still doubt that they regard themselves as the sole providers of the Union’s constitution? To a large extent excluding Parliament, the citizens and – where possible – excluding the Commission too. It has always been the task of democracy to curb the power of princes. The question we must ask ourselves today is whether we want a Europe ruled by princes or a European democracy. If we want a European democracy then we must initiate a constitutional process and make the Charter of Fundamental Rights its cornerstone. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100241.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100241.txt','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100242.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100242.txt','Mr President, I am very grateful to Mr Paasilinna, the rapporteur, for addressing his question to the Commission and thereby making a number of things slightly clearer. I also wish to thank Commissioner Liikanen for the position he has publicly taken, but I would like to add that these reports – of which there are several, the whole package in the last couple of weeks – have put us under enormous pressure and that there have been a lot of misunderstandings because we have not always been able to inform each other of amendments that have been made. I would like to point out that these misunderstandings have led to my name being used by the Greens to support the content of the compromise motions, although I had signed nothing for them. Now I find myself back here again. Pressure of time means, however, that I now agree to them and will not withdraw anything. I only actually signed two amendments, not the others. That I had signed the others had evidently been taken as read because of the way I had expressed myself. This is not an accusation levelled at any individuals, but simply further evidence I wish to adduce to demonstrate what happens when we are under pressure of this sort through wanting to go public with this document towards the end of the year. I do not want to have to work in this way again on such a thorny problem in the future. It really is not on!','Mr President, I am very grateful to Mr Paasilinna, the rapporteur, for addressing his question to the Commission and thereby making a number of things slightly clearer. I also wish to thank Commissioner Liikanen for the position he has publicly taken, but I would like to add that these reports – of which there are several, the whole package in the last couple of weeks – have put us under enormous pressure and that there have been a lot of misunderstandings because we have not always been able to inform each other of amendments that have been made. I would like to point out that these misunderstandings have led to my name being used by the Greens to support the content of the compromise motions, although I had signed nothing for them. Now I find myself back here again. Pressure of time means, however, that I now agree to them and will not withdraw anything. I only actually signed two amendments, not the others. That I had signed the others had evidently been taken as read because of the way I had expressed myself. This is not an accusation levelled at any individuals, but simply further evidence I wish to adduce to demonstrate what happens when we are under pressure of this sort through wanting to go public with this document towards the end of the year. I do not want to have to work in this way again on such a thorny problem in the future. It really is not on!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100243.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100243.txt','Mr President, I have just two comments to make. Firstly, the German translation of recital A is incorrect, so please use the English version here. A further point is this: in our calls to the Commission, a mistake has crept in to paragraph 2. I would ask you to delete the following words, as they make no sense in legal terms. After the words ‘WIPO Treaty’, the following four words – ‘on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT)’ must be deleted. It is incorrect. ‘WIPO Treaty’ should stand, and the following four words plus the parentheses must be deleted.','Mr President, I have just two comments to make. Firstly, the German translation of recital A is incorrect, so please use the English version here. A further point is this: in our calls to the Commission, a mistake has crept in to paragraph 2. I would ask you to delete the following words, as they make no sense in legal terms. After the words ‘WIPO Treaty’, the following four words – ‘on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT)’ must be deleted. It is incorrect. ‘WIPO Treaty’ should stand, and the following four words plus the parentheses must be deleted.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100244.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100244.txt','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)  Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause)  I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100245.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100245.txt','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','Mr President, esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I feel that this evening\'s debate is not only almost a birthday present – it really is one, of a sort. When we started discussing this in 1999 – the business between Austria and Germany is sufficiently well known – I had just been elected to Parliament, and today, three hours before my birthday, we are going a bit further. So I am very grateful that this debate is being held today of all days. I also thank Lord Inglewood, who, in one sentence, conceded that we are right. He said that he respects the decisions of other Member States and I thank him for that. England and continental Europe differ in many respects, and it is these very differences that matter in our united Europe. This debate also made evident and re-emphasised our respect for each other. For that I especially thank Lord Inglewood. My most especial thanks are due, of course, to Mr Rothley, and to all those who worked with him on this report. The Commission, which has repeatedly argued that this EU of ours is above all an economic and monetary union, has changed a very great deal in the last twenty years. A very great deal of interest in cultural aspects has been noticeable in the individual debates, albeit not enough in my view, but we have travelled a long way anyway. Together with Parliament, the Commission made a wise decision in early 2000, and if, by that wise decision, the Commission said ‘A’, then it is for the Commission to take the next step and say ‘B’. Now, in a world that has gone digital, we have different demands from twenty years ago. It is not only on behalf of my group, but also of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that I can express overall support for Mr Rothley\'s proposal. Our current solutions to the fixing of book prices are not meant to represent an attempt at harmonising the European Union, but to give written expression to our mutual respect, and we have to get to grips with the digital requirements with which a new world presents us. Many thanks for listening. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100246.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100246.txt','Madam President, I would just like to say that here too the German version is incorrect. We are sticking with the English version, in which the words “his or her” have been added.','Madam President, I would just like to say that here too the German version is incorrect. We are sticking with the English version, in which the words “his or her” have been added.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100247.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100247.txt','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','Mr President, Mr President-designate of the Commission, I shall be giving my approval to your Commission tomorrow. However, I shall be taking some aspirin beforehand, and I shall probably need a double dose after the end of the hearings and in view of the results of these. We had been told that the sun shone out of this Commission. In fact, the Commission did come through the test, but hardly shone. A number of Commissioners are suspected of having mislead Parliament, and there is the risk of the past catching up with a number of them. A number of Commissioners were hardly filled with ambition, ability and the desire to continue working in the Commission, and the fact that this applies to candidates who are to be concerned with relations between the Commission and Parliament and with preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference is something I find very regrettable indeed. Mr President of the Commission, I believe you have a bigger job in front of you than your Commission is aware. I am voting for you with the sober insight that work has to begin and I am voting for you in the light of your very trustworthy promise to enter into an alliance with this European Parliament. I am voting for you not because of the visions which, for the most part, you still owe us and for the ways leading to the fulfilment of these. I believe that it is either in this Chamber or nowhere at all that the vision of European integration will arise. However, we need the alliance you propose for the vision of a European democracy. We need it for the vision of a peaceful order in Europe, and we need it for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area. However, more is needed in order to achieve these things than you have so far set out. For a European democracy, a constitutional process is needed; for a peaceful order in Europe, courage is needed to accept responsibility for our own security; and for the vision of Europe as a single social and ecological area it will be necessary for politics to be emancipated from an ever more aggressive neo-liberal ideology. This may be a punishable offence for a parliamentarian of 20 years’ standing, but I am voting for you out of hope and not yet out of conviction.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100248.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100248.txt','Mr President, now we have heard words of praise, we Greens, but we have also been attacked slightly. Perhaps you are right to attack us, Mr Pirker, when we think slightly beyond what is planned here in this document. For example, with regard to access to the labour market. However, a fellow member in your group, if I remember correctly, our new Home Secretary, expressed a similar thought once. We are also concerned here about the independence of asylum seekers and about social realities. Mr Schulz has reproached us Greens on the same count. As I said, perhaps you are right, but if we are talking about the individual right to asylum, then this also implies that there must be an individual examination in special cases. That also forms part of the legal framework. We cannot just evince an interest in what happens within the EU and consider that we have nothing more to do with what becomes of an applicant outside the EU. It is no longer our sovereign territory, which is why this one proposed amendment is highly important and significant, precisely in order to ensure that there is no risk of persecution in the land of origin for rejected asylum seekers present on EU sovereign territory and that asylum seekers enjoy effective protection against refoulement in the third country to which they are deported. That is the responsibility which we simply wish to accept in engaging in this debate, a debate which – and here you are right – needs further discussion and needs to be examined in much, much greater detail. We have made a start, a good start and must progress hand in hand. I shall be pleased if we progress by so much as a millimetre.','Mr President, now we have heard words of praise, we Greens, but we have also been attacked slightly. Perhaps you are right to attack us, Mr Pirker, when we think slightly beyond what is planned here in this document. For example, with regard to access to the labour market. However, a fellow member in your group, if I remember correctly, our new Home Secretary, expressed a similar thought once. We are also concerned here about the independence of asylum seekers and about social realities. Mr Schulz has reproached us Greens on the same count. As I said, perhaps you are right, but if we are talking about the individual right to asylum, then this also implies that there must be an individual examination in special cases. That also forms part of the legal framework. We cannot just evince an interest in what happens within the EU and consider that we have nothing more to do with what becomes of an applicant outside the EU. It is no longer our sovereign territory, which is why this one proposed amendment is highly important and significant, precisely in order to ensure that there is no risk of persecution in the land of origin for rejected asylum seekers present on EU sovereign territory and that asylum seekers enjoy effective protection against refoulement in the third country to which they are deported. That is the responsibility which we simply wish to accept in engaging in this debate, a debate which – and here you are right – needs further discussion and needs to be examined in much, much greater detail. We have made a start, a good start and must progress hand in hand. I shall be pleased if we progress by so much as a millimetre.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100249.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100249.txt','Madam President, if the House permits, I should like to give an oral explanation of my Amendment No 51. Some linguistic confusion has arisen, and what I sought to achieve is not reflected at all in this wording. Instead of what is suggested by the words of producers and artists, especially from the non profit-making sector, my primary intention was that we should include in this circle representatives of content providers. Yesterday, before and after the debate, I discussed the matter with some individual Members of the House. Several Members consider that these representatives of the content providers are subsumed under other categories of representatives. This shows that the wording is not clear and unequivocal. The programme is called eContent . We should therefore include content providers in it. This ought not to pose a great problem, in my view. I should appreciate your support for this amendment.','Madam President, if the House permits, I should like to give an oral explanation of my Amendment No 51. Some linguistic confusion has arisen, and what I sought to achieve is not reflected at all in this wording. Instead of what is suggested by the words \"of producers and artists, especially from the non profit-making sector\", my primary intention was that we should include in this circle representatives of content providers. Yesterday, before and after the debate, I discussed the matter with some individual Members of the House. Several Members consider that these representatives of the content providers are subsumed under other categories of representatives. This shows that the wording is not clear and unequivocal. The programme is called eContent . We should therefore include content providers in it. This ought not to pose a great problem, in my view. I should appreciate your support for this amendment.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10025.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10025.txt','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','Madam President, many thanks for your tolerance and patience! A fellow member of the European People’s Party described his Party as being friends of security, as if there were any enemies of security in this House! I think the problem is rather that many are not the friends of freedom and the law to the same extent. (Applause)  Therefore, I also believe that the most pressing task consists of achieving the prerequisites for an area of freedom, security and justice, specifically a Charter of Fundamental Rights in Europe, because the important thing is not only to centralise the sensitive application of State and police authority, but also to europeanise the rights of citizens. Now the Cologne Summit has decided upon the proclamation of just such a European list of fundamental rights, a laudable intention. But when one looks at the manner in which this has been planned, then one can only, as a Member of Parliament, be shocked. The Council has – for what reasons, I do not understand – assumed total responsibility for this list of fundamental rights. There was no dialogue with the European Parliament. This is unacceptable, given that the European Parliament has the role of representing the peoples of Europe and is thus the original authority for such a Charter of Fundamental Rights. There can be no question of equivalence of legislative institutions in this process. The inclusion of national parliaments has involved only individual representatives, so there can be no question either of plurality of political tendencies in this process. What is most worrying and most alarming is the scope of the undertaking. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I believe there is one thing we should not do and that is to fulfil the fundamental requirements of the citizens in appearance only. A proclamation of already existing rights is no Charter of Fundamental Rights, but political versemongering!','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100250.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100250.txt','Madam President, I would like to make a similar announcement to this House. I think that many in this Chamber are affected, as authors. But as far as Amendment No 33 is concerned, I am particularly biased. I will definitely not be voting on Amendment No 33.','Madam President, I would like to make a similar announcement to this House. I think that many in this Chamber are affected, as authors. But as far as Amendment No 33 is concerned, I am particularly biased. I will definitely not be voting on Amendment No 33.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100251.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100251.txt','Mr President, a very good evening and welcome to Europe\'s first culture channel. But joking apart, what can I say to you in just a minute? Perhaps I should try to take the wind out of the sceptics\' sails. This is not about intervention, it is not about interfering in national cultural policy, no new wave of harmonisation is being started on the contrary, it is about bringing sermonising politicians down to earth and saying, could you please stop using subsidiarity as a veto. It is about saying, if you really mean that culture is one of the most important models for the peaceful integration of Europe, then you must put your money where you mouth is. We try to join forces in so many areas why should culture go it alone? Joint investment by Europe in culture – I like that expression better than subsidy, it is not just a question of financial support – is long overdue. May I run over time slightly in order to pay my respects and offer my thanks to all the members who have patiently fought to make headway here over the years, long before my arrival here. I should like to thank them for every millimetre of ground won and I too shall fight for more, millimetre by millimetre.','Mr President, a very good evening and welcome to Europe\'s first culture channel. But joking apart, what can I say to you in just a minute? Perhaps I should try to take the wind out of the sceptics\' sails. This is not about intervention, it is not about interfering in national cultural policy, no new wave of harmonisation is being started; on the contrary, it is about bringing sermonising politicians down to earth and saying, could you please stop using subsidiarity as a veto. It is about saying, if you really mean that culture is one of the most important models for the peaceful integration of Europe, then you must put your money where you mouth is. We try to join forces in so many areas; why should culture go it alone? Joint investment by Europe in culture – I like that expression better than subsidy, it is not just a question of financial support – is long overdue. May I run over time slightly in order to pay my respects and offer my thanks to all the members who have patiently fought to make headway here over the years, long before my arrival here. I should like to thank them for every millimetre of ground won and I too shall fight for more, millimetre by millimetre.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100252.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100252.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’ they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like first to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report and thank him for his good cooperation. This topic is, as my predecessor on the floor has confirmed, close to all our hearts. There are many points on which we agree, such as trust being a better fundamental premise for this common endeavour than overall control or even censorship, neither of which would serve as a good basis for cooperation. We also agree that we must advertise the hotlines more extensively in order for them to be used, as we desire, right across the whole of Europe, and in order for us to be able to establish where protection is needed. We agree, too, that we have to provide parents with the right tools to enable them, together with their children, to assess which TV programmes, computer games, and films are the right ones for their children, and in order to support them in their judgment of the programmes. On this I agree with Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, who spoke before me. This is where moving closer on a European level to a uniform system of classification for the whole audio-visual sector seems to be of the greatest and most urgent importance, as that would be a tool facilitating control by parents and young people themselves, one that could also function on the basis of trust and not tend towards either excessive control or censorship. I now come to what I believe is at the moment the most important point in connection with this ‘box’, namely that the Internet strikes many as a sort of ‘wonderbox’; they stand in front of it and are simply overwhelmed by all the stuff that comes out of it, forgetting in the process what influences can come into play, especially on children and young people, if we do not consciously discern what is heading in our direction. Let me emphasise it three times, four times, ten times over: media literacy. Media literacy – we cannot start too soon on heightening awareness of it and on playing our part in developing it. To do this, we also need not only the political willingness; we also need more programmes. For them, we need money. Perhaps we will achieve some sort of collaboration with all the players at the European level, something which is, at the end of the day, in the interests of all. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100253.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100253.txt','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100254.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100254.txt','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','Mr President, I would like to start by contradicting what has just been said by Mr Fava, who was of the opinion that we are engaging in mock combat. I do not believe that to be the case; this was meant to be a debate. How are we to take the Alpine Convention as the basis for solving a problem that affects not only Austria? For some time, now, we have been holding a debate between little Austria and the European Union, and, although I do not, right now, want to apportion blame, we have been playing this out for long enough. Austrian governments have made mistakes, as has the European Union. I will not be able to persuade or convince you – it seems to be too late for that – but I would, all the same, like to give you a few more facts to consider before we take a decision tomorrow, taking as I do the view that we MEPs should come to our decisions on the basis of verifiable facts. In 1996, we observed that our air quality measurements showed no reduction in the elements indicating high levels of nitrous oxide pollution, even though the threshold values prescribed for vehicles had become more stringent, and the emissions models had led us to expect a reduction of some 45%. These high levels of emissions, from heavy commercial vehicles in particular, aroused suspicions that this sector could be the source of the higher levels of emissions. A study was therefore carried out by the Technical University at Graz, which, it might be mentioned, also does work for the Commission as part of the Artemis programme. The results, which were markedly more exact than before, were published as part of an international study involving the best measurement laboratories in Europe. Let me quote from the study’s final report: ‘It has been established that emissions from heavy commercial vehicles, especially of pollutants belonging to the NOx group, have hitherto been significantly underestimated. This applies to vehicles fitted with engines in European categories Euro 2 and Euro 3. When operating in actual traffic, these vehicles produce higher levels of emissions than the categories allocated to them would appear to indicate. An explanation of this is to be sought in the way in which the vehicle’s engine is deliberately programmed to function. The vehicles are engineered in such a way that they demonstrate lower emission levels at the points measured in the course of the test cycles for their type prescribed by law. At those operating points that are not tested in the test cycle for their type, but which are very definitely significant in actual driving, the vehicles produce the same emissions as, or even higher levels of them than, older engines’. The reduction of NOx emissions is, of course, what the ecopoint systems’ rules – which I have never claimed to be exactly brilliant – are intended to do. What this study now shows us is that it can be established that there is no scientific basis for the reduction of the number of ecopoints logged per transit journey for Euro 2 and Euro 3 as against Euro 1. When I asked Mr Caveri to include these facts, he referred me to his Amendment No 17, which simply says, ‘shall ensure that it is done correctly’, and, at the same time, explained that there was nothing he could do if the engines of HGVs were tweaked – and, if he is accusing Italian hauliers of doing that, now really has to be the time for him to explain himself.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100255.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100255.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Intergovernmental Conference, having only just been opened, paints a picture of a bundle of banknotes being thrown into the crowd in a pedestrian zone. Everyone is jostling to get hold of a note; the Convention draft is being dealt with as if a piece of game were being hunted to death so that everyone can pull out a piece for themselves. At this point I wonder who is actually the source of Europe’s constitution. The citizens? Their directly elected representatives – the parliaments – or even the cabinet offices and national governments? One day we will have to answer this question before history and the people of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference gives its own answer, that they are the source of Europe’s constitution. In Thessaloniki they claimed that they would not open Pandora’s box. Pandora’s box is open and you can see how the old diseases of Europe are spreading, national egoism and aspirations of unilateralism in the individual institutions. From where else might they come, these diseases and this evil that we are seeing? In its first meeting, the Legislative Council thus removed the separation of powers element and the public nature of legislation, without debate. The Finance Ministers agree: fewer rights for Parliament, less publicity, fewer rights for the Commission. They are the sole legislators. They – they alone – have budget sovereignty behind closed doors. Qualified majority voting – a considerable step in the draft Constitution – is being challenged in many areas. Dual majority in the Council, one of the Convention’s best principles: a law is passed with the majority of the States and the majority of the citizens. That is understandable, that is legitimate. It is attacked for not fitting in with their power game. Another step forward: Euratom. A great opening towards reform of this obsolete treaty will be blocked. The European Central Bank, which is bound by the Convention on European values and objectives, will be exempt from these values because of solidarity. I could go on. The attacks are fierce. The principle is: more power to governments, less democracy, fewer rights for citizens, and less knowledge for the public. We need to respond to this, and if the parliaments do not do so, then Europe’s Constitution will be a bad one.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100256.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100256.txt','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','Mr President, which of the mothers or fathers present does not know that feeling of embarrassment that comes from sitting next to your own child or a schoolchild at a computer? Even since my twins – who are now nine – were at pre-school, they have been showing me again and again how to use a computer, so I think I would need the eLearning Programme more than my children do. Leaving such personal matters to one side, I congratulate this programme, and also the rapporteur, especially on his calls for European software, for more European content and for European services. This is a responsibility for the Fifteen and for the European Union. It is one from which the Council, too, cannot be discharged. I also welcome all the amendments that are intended to foster a critical engagement with the instrument of the Internet, not only on the part of school pupils, but also on the part of their teachers. Whilst much of this is good, there is one point on which, unfortunately, I am unable to agree with you. The digital divide between the Member States is something that the Fifteen – who will soon be joined by another Ten! – must sort out among themselves, but the digital divide in our societies is a matter of concern for all of us. I do think that, in order to be consistent with your Amendment No 10, we should stick to the Commission proposal as to how the funds are to be divided up. We consider that to be a more equal and more balanced allocation of funding. I am sorry, but with so little time available to me, I cannot go into greater detail.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100257.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100257.txt','Could Mr van Velzen perhaps comment on whether Amendment No 10 now says: “considers it important to deepen…” or “to clarify the following concepts” ?','Could Mr van Velzen perhaps comment on whether Amendment No 10 now says: “considers it important to deepen…” or “to clarify the following concepts” ?','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100258.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100258.txt','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','Mr President, we Greens especially welcome the report. It is an excellent report, explaining without ambiguity the national parliaments\' tasks and role in the area of legitimising and monitoring national governments\' legislative activities in the Council, in intergovernmental cooperation, where this monitoring function is not at all adequate, but also in the involvement of the national parliaments in the development of a European constitution, summed up in the word ‘Convention’. It is interesting to note, in this context, how this issue keeps appearing on the agenda, for there is no conflict between Parliament and national parliaments, nor is their task unclear. It occurs to me that this conflict is always engendered when the Council and the national governments want to resist Parliament\'s claim that it should become a fully-developed legislature. It is then that the impression is conveyed that parliamentary democracy at European level would be to the detriment of the national parliaments. It is a false argument, but a systematic one and a deception in the true sense of the word. This discord between the parliaments is intended to maintain the Council\'s position of power. Parliamentarianism in Europe is, however, indivisible. The commitment to parliamentary democracy is made at the European level. Parliament should therefore give a serious but wary reception to certain announcements made in advance by the Convention\'s president-designate, who has for weeks, via the press rather than by direct contact, and without yet being confirmed in office by the Convention, been giving voice to ideas about this constituent assembly which bear little relation to what Parliament demands or to the development of European democracy and parliamentarianism. I strongly appeal to this House to play its part in making the Convention a working, parliamentary and public convention and not, as it has been to date, a legitimising façade for the Council. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100259.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100259.txt','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by associating myself with Mr Watson’s determined protest against the grave and ongoing violations of human rights in the USA’s prison camps. Let me now turn to the Intergovernmental Conference. I ask myself why in fact the governments summoned a Convention, when, even without one, they could still have had the age-old spectacle of the nations haggling over their interests. While the governments are turning the Convention draft inside out, we in this House have gone back to drafting resolutions, repeating ourselves, protesting against the eternal sameness of things, but to no avail, with neither a response nor even a serious debate to show for it. The question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing. The governments think they know what our response is going to be; we gave it to them after the partial failure of Amsterdam. It was, ‘this is better than nothing.’ Then, after Nice, where the failure was complete, we gave it to them again: ‘this is better than nothing.’ Now I have come to believe that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. We should make it plain to the governments that it is not they who are the masters of the treaties, but the parliaments and the people they represent, and that it is these who can bring this constitution down. We are then told in tones full of emotion that the dignity of every single Member State must be safeguarded. What about Europe’s dignity? Nobody said a word about that. I cannot imagine that the dignity of any single Member State demands that the principles of the separation of the powers and of the public nature of lawmaking be violated, or that the legislative council – the Convention’s big idea for greater democracy – be done away with. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State demands that the undoubted legitimacy of dual majority be traded for the lottery of Nice. I cannot imagine that the dignity of a Member State means that more laws have to be passed in Council, or that more offences against parliamentarianism and the public nature of lawmaking are called for. That has nothing whatever to do with national dignity, which does not require an attack on Parliament’s budgetary rights. In the last debate, and in the corridors and behind the scenes, I have heard people calling for compromise. To hear Mr Méndez de Vigo speak about it, you would think it was about this House renouncing its loyalty to the Convention and setting out on the treacherous ice of compromise. We are offered compromises only when we are in retreat. We are offered negotiations only when democracy and the rights of Parliament are disputed. Nobody seems to me to be offering to negotiate concerning our demands over and above the Intergovernmental Conference. This time, we should make it plain that a bad constitution is not better than nothing. (Applause)','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('10026.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\10026.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on their successful and fruitful open coordination! Open coordination – it sounds like a really modern logo. Coordinating political activities and political strategies requires a great deal of logic, and we are not always used to this in the work of politics. It is really very welcome! I had a few problems at home, trying to explain this open coordination to the Austrian public. We do not yet have a tradition of this in the way the Scandinavian countries do, for example. The first question people asked me at home was ‘And what role does Parliament play in it?’ I had to explain to them everything I have heard here this evening, and everything we hear over and over again in the committees. ‘Of course’, the citizens said, ‘not just out of respect for you as a Member of Parliament, and not only as a right that a Member of Parliament must assert for herself and on behalf of the population: we demand democratic legitimisation of this wonderful opportunity!’ Now, as to whether open coordination is indeed such a wonderful opportunity, as I have said, I have no experience to date; I am not yet a fan. Neither am I sure that conversion to the Community method is really the recipe for solving matters. I believe that we must look more closely at the details, which means that the three institutions must sit down at the table. This does not mean an act of mercy towards the European Parliament, but open, fair negotiations among the three institutions. It is all about the details: how is Parliament to be involved? How are we to have access to documents? What rules should we put in place? If we really do make good progress in this regard, I may yet become a fan of open coordination. In the field of culture, media, sport, education and youth, it would also be a possible step towards a kind of European cultural policy, but please do not misunderstand: I am in no way referring to harmonisation of national cultural policy, but rather to effective coordination of common policies in order to achieve common goals together. Because, as we all know, we are simply not strong enough on our own – particularly in these sensitive areas. This is the reason for my request, and I cannot repeat it often enough. I believe that Parliament came close to speaking with one voice here. This is what is expected of Europe in many areas. Let the Commission consider us a partner and coordinate with us – openly!','2016-08-15 15:23:43');
INSERT INTO `document` VALUES ('100260.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100260.txt','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.','Mr President, I should like to explain why the Greens were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the Greens voted in favour of it.','2016-08-15 15:23:43'),('100261.txt','C:\\Users\\D056937\\Desktop\\Masterthesis\\EuroParl\\Split_EuroParl_Speeches\\100261.txt','Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if it is true that one can only unite things that have inner unity and that belong together, then this raises the question as to what European unity actually consists of. We are not one people. We do not have the same ethnic origin. We do not speak the same language. We do not have a single culture and rel