Did the drafters of Chapter One of the Charter not realize that physical integrity and

dignity can be threatened not only by government institutions and the state, but also can
disguise itself as love?

Currently, for 25% of European women suffering from some form of violence, their
tormentors have private names, and defending against assaults does not allow them to be
citizens.

According to NGOs, more than 2,500 women die every year in the European Union
without us asking ourselves whether these crimes can be prevented or avoided.

European women have welcomed the move to bring the European Protection Order
before the Parliament by member states and the Spanish Presidency.

We are creating a European area of security; the European Arrest Warrant means that no
country can become a safe haven for criminals.

Let’s create an environment of mutual trust. Through the protection order, we are
establishing a domain of justice and freedom, as those targeted by these crimes can be
welcomed in any country without further action, as my colleague, Ms. Basrel, said.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about private terrorism, which is now being given
to this ongoing crime of attacks hidden in the privacy of the home.

We are also talking about preventive measures from a different source.

Not all countries have the same legal traditions as we develop, the more so an instrument
that can provide our diversity and will be necessary, as the Council’s legal services have
also taken this idea, as the Parliament’s legal services have.

Where does resistance remain?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not hidden in the complexity of our legal system, which will
still remain.

The law is not a source of conflict, but a means of resolving it.

This has been the view of conservative governments that have supported this initiative
based on sound decisions.

If we were talking about guarantees and fundamental rights in relation to terrorism, how
could we implement international agreements if it weren’t because we are talking about
security?

Aren’t 2,500 women every year a matter of European protection?

This is not the first time in history that the law has faced a challenge.

Therefore, we regret the Commission’s position throughout the entire procedure, because
when we are talking about political will, we cannot be talking about legal grounds.
Let’s not apply it when the law is in our favor.

This text is the result of an agreement.

The reforms we have included regarding information, translation, and procedural

guarantees have been made with the understanding that this is a recognition tool, and the
Parliament has decided that it is a priority for member states to keep the current data on
the table openly.

We have not forgotten about psychological support and legal assistance for victims’
rights.

We will continue to fight for these things, and we hope that the next package concerning
victims will include them.

We would like to thank the Belgian Presidency of the Council for this work, along with
our counterparts and our team.

By today’s vote, we want to send a message to the Council that this is the will of
Parliament; now it is the Council’s responsibility to fulfill its obligations.

If some member states are convinced that we don’t have an issue because we don’t have
statistics, we will not succeed in dealing with prevention.

Now the Council is going to decide whether Europe is really involved in tackling violence
and defending fundamental rights.

Madam President, Mr. Gerido, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this membership is
certainly a sign of a European Union mission to defend and promote human rights.

A mission that has already been fully established and developed through history, with the
fact that individual member states are already connected to the European Council
Convention, reaffirming that the general principles of the Convention and member states’
constitutions are now part of European law.

So, this symbolic gesture is very important.

However, translating this ideal concept into basic legal rules is not as easy as it appears,
as this report primarily and ultimately brings up only institutional questions, and this is
completely acceptable.

I must say that I also thank Mr. Atundo, and I am bound to inform that the IFCO
Committee on Constitutional Affairs has almost unanimously approved this document.

Therefore, we are satisfied with this document, and I will not consider its individual
elements, as we fully support everything said by the President of the Council and the
Commissioner.

I just want to offer a suggestion, since the statement on the institutional presence of
European Members of Parliament in the European Council Parliamentary Assembly,
when the meeting for the appointment of judges and jurists becomes somewhat vague, I
would say that there is a small issue with this. Europe, the EU population, and the
relations between the populations of other countries.

Fortunately, the rules controlling membership and representation in the European Council
Parliamentary Assembly have already stated that no state can have less than two, and no
more than 18 in total.

Considering the importance of the European Union, I suggest we set the line at 18.

However, I find it necessary to conclude, and I will end by saying that this resolution
exposes the issue that it needs to be examined more deeply, in other words, the issue we
have already highlighted multiple times regarding relations between courts.

I am convinced that we need to consider this issue further, but above all, we are European
on the issue of the European spirit, as the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 2 says, we are founded
on human dignity and human rights, and equality is based on human dignity.

In Europe, we are not united on this point, and therefore we should carefully consider this
concept of human dignity, its limits, and the things it encompasses.

However, this is not the subject of this decision or the welcome report.

I thank the reporter.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe has finally responded.

The heads of state or government finally started dealing with the difficulties 10 days ago
by making a decision on our currency, the euro, and the support plan.

This is a plan that accurately reflects the scale of European solidarity, thus conflicting
with all those who doubted it, but it is still insufficient, and must be accompanied by
measures to reduce our national budget deficit and measures to reach an agreement
between the 27 and the social financial budget.

I think everyone is saying this this morning, and we have all been saying the same thing
for the past fifteen days.

Well, now let’s do this.

To drastically increase the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact, this plan was
completed last Wednesday with the Commission’s decision, which I welcome.

Ladies and gentlemen, until all these measures are implemented, we will not expatriate
ourselves.

Until we have the political courage, we will not exile ourselves because the steps that
should have been taken collectively at the European Union level and individually at the
national level have already been taken.
This applies to both right-wing and left-wing governments.

I deeply regret that the German socialists lacked the courage when they voted in the
Bundestag on the European aid plan.

We should learn lessons from all of them.

First of all, we must know the true state of the national public accounts, just as we know
the true state of the European Union's public accounts.

I demand that the Commission struggle to ensure and penalize this state, and not just
subject any state failing to meet its responsibilities to horrific criticism.

As you well know, everyone fears the trap of speed, everyone fears penalties, and how
many points are on their licenses when they are on the road.

This is how we are made, so we must face punishment.

This is the alpha and omega of any serious policy in this area.

The second lesson is that, in these actions, we should quickly focus on our budgetary
policies.

The Commission said this last week.

I myself called for it in this chamber a few weeks ago.

I know that when we ask them to pay attention, member states must be disturbed, but they
must now be outraged if they continue to run their public finances as if they were living
on a desert island, as if they were disconnected from each other by currency and,
therefore, by the necessary common discipline.

Furthermore, what is true in the national budget is also true for social and financial
policy.

Again, I understand the anger of some of my fellow citizens when they are asked to make
sacrifices for others who work first and retire first.

This cannot continue either.

This is the third lesson I have learned from this crisis.

The euro will only be viable if we collectively provide the resources to make it so.

I will not oppose Mr. Volcker, President Obama's financial advisor, who said that if we
do not change our culture and behavior, the euro is doomed to fail.

We must look beyond national reservations and European ideas.

We must promote short-term policies that prevent our national governments from losing
points in public opinion polls and shift towards medium- and long-term plans that our
entrepreneurs are also demanding to make investments and recruit.

My group is calling for Europe to wake up.

They are demanding that the Commission do its job, including applying the carrot and
stick technique with member states.

Economically, rewarding those who clean up their finances and punishing those who
refuse.

The Commission, Mr. Rehn, should not be afraid to do this.

It will be in the interest of Europe and the member states.

The real issue among our fellow citizens, which is raised in all our meetings, is whether
their savings are still secure or not.

I understand these citizens, who have worked all their lives to save something.

Therefore, this is the first reassurance that we must give them: that their savings are safe.

This is the only job the Commission should do. It was created for this purpose.

Ladies and gentlemen, only in this context will the 2020 strategy make sense.

It is only when we are once again serious about the goal that, if we work together on
public accounts, we will succeed in winning the battle against unemployment, education,
training, research, and innovation.

I said this yesterday, and I say it every day: if we are to save in all our member states, we,
as a parliament and as European civil servants, must lead by example, or else we will lack
credibility.

That’s all I have to say, and I still hope that this crisis can at least serve as a new starting
point for Europe and its citizens.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Mr. Tabajdi for his excellent work.

It is unfortunate that we are not able to conclude our debate with a resolution.

I firmly believe that to achieve minority rights, it is necessary to make them part of the
sectarian group.

Unfortunately, the Commission is very reluctant to propose any kind of action in this
area.

We must remember that minority rights are an essential part of human rights, so our
standards must be raised as high as possible.
Let us not forget that the protection and safeguarding of minorities is one of the
Copenhagen criteria.

During the accession process, the Commission does not properly apply this criterion
either.

We are prepared to grant concessions in the hope that the situation will improve
afterwards, but since the exchanges, there are still no tools to solve this problem, as
Commissioner Barrot pointed out last month.

We have outlined a common European Union standard for minority rights, and it is
absolutely necessary.

The benefits of reducing energy consumption and dependence in Europe will be, at the
same time, economic, environmental, and political.

Therefore, the Energy Efficiency Action Plan has far-reaching implications.

I was the rapporteur for the Environmental Committee's opinion on ICT’s contribution to
energy efficiency, and I know that one of the most important tasks here is facilitating the
integration of renewable energy sources into the electricity supply.

Smart grids could help achieve this, while smart meters in homes can help us become
aware of when we can save energy, thus helping to reduce consumption.

The Commission needs to properly address these two elements in the action plan, and
member states need to provide their full cooperation in installing the necessary
infrastructure through public procurement contracts, if required.

In Strasbourg today, we voted on the report concerning the role of women in agriculture
and rural areas.

I personally come from rural areas, I live in rural areas, and there was a time when I
worked hard on my parents' farm.

I can say with full confidence that women in rural areas not only influence the
development and modernization of farms, but their hard work and determination often
motivate the entire rural community.

Their activities in rural women's clubs, their efforts to preserve traditions and family
customs, and the successful implementation of their new solutions in farm management
mean that they are a group that should be supported and valued.

Thank you.

The Hungarian presidency's intention to conclude negotiations in mid-2011 makes us

very hopeful about the future of the Balkans region and the EU accession of these
countries.
The Croatian government has made significant progress in dealing with the process of
human rights reform and protection.

There are still some areas that need improvement to ensure that Croatia is considered
ready for the European Union and to strengthen the fight against corruption under the
Europe 2020 strategy, including the protection of minorities, such as the Italian
minorities, reducing the duration of judicial proceedings, strengthening judicial
infrastructure and resources, tax reforms, and public spending cuts.

If Croatia continues to implement all the necessary reforms to complete the acquis
negotiations, it will be a valuable contribution to increasing the wealth of the European
Union and ensuring the geopolitical balance between East and West, starting from the
Mediterranean region.

The development of European macro-regions, which includes the Adriatic and Ionian
region, including Italy, will soon bring Croatia to the heart of European programs and
policies.

Mr. President, when we first looked at the initial proposal 18 months ago, we saw that
many would describe it as a "bad shirt."

It was clearly a proposal that had not been consulted with the industry, which would close
markets, making it very difficult for European investors to invest in non-EU funds and
reducing pension fund profits, thereby affecting investment in developing countries.

I was very concerned about these proposals.

Fortunately, thanks to excellent cooperation with the shadow members and the good work
of the commissioner and the Belgian presidency, we reached an acceptable solution that
now works, keeps markets open, increases transparency, and ensures that European
investors continue to invest in markets outside the EU.

We must keep an eye on the role of ESMA to ensure it does not restrict access to non-EU
funds, but overall, we have reached a compromise that is acceptable across the entire
chamber.

Mr. President, I will keep it brief as the Netherlands-Uruguay match is still ongoing.

We are leading by one to three goals, so it seems like the Netherlands will make it to the
final.

After that, I will keep it short, as I want to catch the end of the game.

Moving forward with this directive is crucial because it is of great importance for air
quality for all European citizens.

In light of this, I am truly disappointed with the negotiations.

I am happy that my fellow member, Mr. Davis, referred to his own member state, his own
government, as it is one of the governments that has obstructed any form of stringent
legislation.

This means that, for example, the UK faces more air pollution than 11 Dutch power
stations, despite having only three dirty coal-fired power plants.

This clearly shows how uneven the playing field is in terms of air quality and industry.

The Netherlands, and Germany as well, which is the home country of my colleague Mr.
Kremer, have implemented it very well and strictly, while other countries, like Italy and
the UK, have failed to do so for years.

It is clear that this legislation needs to be made more stringent, and it is therefore painful
for me to see Italy and the UK, especially, repeatedly blocking improvements in the
Council.

Nonetheless, when all is said and done, I am a supporter of this strictness.

However, although they have 12 more years, even in the UK and Italy, and other power
plants in Europe, they will have to comply with higher standards, ensuring the health of
European citizens across all member states.

At the end of the day, that's all that matters.

Therefore, the Greens and the European Free Alliance group will ultimately vote in favor
of this legislation, but with a heavy heart, as it is a difficult issue.

So often, we hear all MEPs talk about the need for a level playing field, but when it
comes to implementing it for clean air, many member states step back and lag behind.

This gap remains, but at the end of the day, all member states will not take long to comply
with it.

We need to provide a level playing field, and we need to get clean air.

It is worth voting for, although the process has been frustrating, as several member states
have failed us.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, we are making progress.

I believe the match is now over, and the Netherlands has made it to the final.

I voted against the joint motion on the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1325 on women in peace and security because it has a distorted view
on gender equality.

In my opinion, having women in military organizations or international police forces does

not achieve equality.
Likewise, women's security, in the context of UN Resolution 1325, is ensured through
permanent employment, not through military intervention, to prevent conflicts through
civilian and peaceful means.

On the contrary, this specific resolution called for more women to be employed in police
and military missions and for the European Union to deploy more women officers and
soldiers in CSDP missions.

Another reason I voted against this resolution was that the left-wing confederal group in
the European Union deleted the amendments that called for more women to join EUPOL
and EUSEC, and to strengthen the presence of women in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. These amendments were rejected.

Mr. President, it is disappointing that the Council and the Commission are committed to
moving forward with the Lisbon Treaty.

I know this might not be popular in this chamber, but I truly believe that in the UK, there
should be a referendum on this treaty.

I do not understand why both the Conservative and Labour parties are unwilling to offer
this.

However, this morning, I especially want to draw your attention to the financial situation,
which continues to keep Europe in a state of uncertainty.

Last night, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Mervyn King, indicated that the
UK has lent banks close to GBP 1 trillion.

In fact, he indicated that before, many people did not owe such amounts, and there were
very few real reforms.

Mr. King further pointed out that the control over banks was insufficient, but at the heart
of this banking crisis was the moral dilemma that these financial and banking institutions
knew they were too big to fail, and taxpayers, whether in the UK or any other part of
Europe, would always have to rescue them, no matter the crisis.

Minister, this is a very serious allegation, and it comes from one of the leading members
of the banking world.

There must be a commitment in Council meetings to address this moral dilemma, and this
chamber would be interested in knowing what it is and how it will be addressed.

The root of the financial crisis facing the European Union is the unregulated activity of
several investment funds, especially from the United States.

These funds, including hedge funds, are characterized by aggressive speculation.

This seems to be a major cause of the disaster we are experiencing today.

To protect the future of the European market from the excesses of these alternative funds,
I voted for my colleague Mr. Goz's report.

This text represents an important step in financial regulation.

With this vote, we strengthen the powers of the European Securities and Markets
Authority.

This European authority for financial markets will be established on January 1, 2011, and
under strict conditions, it will provide a passport allowing the activity of alternative
investment fund managers in the European Union.

Under this directive, they are required to respect authorized or registered, operational, and
organizational requirements, and observe principles of conduct and transparency.

They will be subject to supervisory powers and the enforcement of sanctions by member
states and competent authorities of ESMA.

In the future, fund managers located outside the European Union will also be subject to
the same rules that apply to European funds.

Mr. President, Mrs. Ashton, we are hearing voices from various parts of the chamber, but
they share one issue, one theme, collectively the European Union's response, the political
response, was insufficient, and its coordinated management was lacking.

I believe we should thank charitable organizations for their spontaneous and, as always,
flawless acceptance of the responsibility of necessity.

In addition, we should also think about what could have been done better.

In fact, I only have one question for Mrs. Ashton: Is this the first situation you have faced
in your new position?

What is the main conclusion you draw from this incident, and from the mistakes we are
all discussing here?

More importantly, what can be changed in the future?

I believe this is the most important thing we need to think about, and to do so, to some
extent, it is our role.

The principles of the European Union’s 2020 strategy are crucial for promoting the
competitiveness of the European economy.

They are key to the structural reforms needed to overcome the crisis we are facing.

The solutions proposed so far to exit this crisis are not targeting the reasons that got us
into this situation.

Only through structural reforms can the root causes of the crisis be eliminated.
We need to focus more on modernizing our economies, as the key to the European
Union's competitiveness will lie there in the coming times.

We need to adopt a coordinated approach to the use of funds allocated for innovation and
regional development.

Innovation should be highlighted as part of regional development.

In the Lisbon Strategy, innovation was a goal, but unfortunately, it remained just a
principle on paper.

There were vast differences in the progress of member states, and the overall objective
was not achieved.

That is why I urge all member states to take some responsibility and adhere to the
commitments they have made.

The Commission should also play a more active role in ensuring coherence in the
implementation of this strategy, to prevent it from failing disastrously like the Lisbon
Strategy.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, these are critical times for all of Europe.

The future of Europe means, above all, future generations.

Being hopeful about Europe’s future means opportunities, skills, and capabilities for
young people.

This report and every other measure related to this issue will have no significance in the
future unless we all, especially those of us directly elected by European citizens, highlight
in every action of our policy, every move, the priority and emphasis we need to give to
the youth.

In these difficult times, both in Greece and in other countries, we are confident that we
can achieve this.

We can achieve it by working together with the youth, making a real effort, and if they
have the opportunity, they will take the future in their hands and lead us to a better
tomorrow.

Thanks to the shadow rapporteurs for the cooperation and consensus achieved by all
groups.

Mr. President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the Fisheries Committee

Coordinator, I find the fishing aspect of this interim agreement particularly interesting.

In this regard, there were initially some controversial issues regarding the relaxation of
the principles of Papua New Guinea.
I support the Commission’s idea of using this relaxation to stimulate the economy of one
of the world’s poorest countries.

I believe this is something that should concern all of us involved in fisheries policy.

At the same time, I can understand the concerns of European industry, but I honestly
cannot imagine that, given the concession, Papua New Guinea will become a serious
competitor to our canning industry.

However, we need to remain vigilant, because if we shift half of our canning industry to
the Pacific region, it will not help anyone.

In this regard, I must say that, during the discussion on this agreement, we were presented
with very conflicting information regarding the extent of investment in Papua New
Guinea and which states are indirectly benefiting.

Therefore, I would immediately call on the Commission to closely monitor the

application of this concession and to present a timely report to Parliament on the
development of Papua New Guinea and the impact on the European canning industry.

If this arrangement does not have the desired effect in Papua New Guinea and causes
unacceptable losses to European companies, we will have to make a different decision
when we discuss the final agreement.

Please keep us informed of progress.

This is the European Union’s first budget, in which the voting was done in accordance
with the rules of the Lisbon Treaty on first reading.

Although there are still some sensitive points remaining for reconciliation, dealing with
issues I consider of utmost importance, such as the allocation for cohesion and
agriculture, I welcome this proposal.

The approved document restores the Commission’s initial proposal on the section related
to mutual alliance for development and employment, after reducing the Council’s
allocated amount.

Although the amount for 2011 has already been set within the multi-annual financial
framework with an upper limit of 50.65 billion euros at current prices, it is worth noting
that a high level of payments will be required for this important area.

I also welcome the allocation for the competitive section of development and
employment, which includes financing for most of Parliament’s proposals, such as
programs for small and medium-sized enterprises and youth, education, and mobility.

I am voting in favor of this document, although it does not include the European People’s
Party’s proposed measures regarding the storage of grain, milk, dairy products, and
powdered milk, which were unfortunately rejected by the Committee on Agriculture and
Rural Development.
Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the speakers, but nevertheless, I want to express
several questions and concerns related to this matter, and to do so, I will inevitably draw
attention to two recent examples.

First, under the group exiled by France and the United Kingdom, there is a fear of
deporting 27 Afghans to Kabul.

I would like to know whether the Commission and the Council believe that Afghanistan is
a country where the physical integrity of deported individuals is guaranteed.

Here is the translation of the provided lines, one by one:

The Commission has only informed us that it is unable to guarantee that this deportation
was carried out after verification, as the relevant individuals had not applied for
international protection, or indeed complied with each stage of the process of examining
their application, if it exists.

The second example concerns the deportation from Rome to Kosovo of individuals from
Germany, Belgium, and Austria, countries that have signed readmission agreements,
although the UNHCR, in its guidelines from November, and I have considered any part of
settling in Kosovo.

In Kosovo, these individuals face serious restrictions on their freedom of movement and
enjoyment of fundamental human rights, with reports of threats and physical violence
against these communities.

With this in mind, I would like to seek clarification on three points.

Article 15 of the 2004 Qualification Directive, which grants the right to provide
subsidiary protection to individuals who face a serious and individual threat due to
indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict, why was
it not implemented?

The second question is, could it be considered legitimate to deport individuals residing
illegally in the European Union’s territory because they have not applied for international
protection?

Finally, in question three, should Member States confirm the decision of the Council on
October 29 and 30, which examined the possibilities for chartering return flights with
financial assistance from the Frontex Agency, and whether they intend to agree on the
European list of safe countries and adopt rapid actions within a general political
framework?

Equal opportunities for men and women are a fundamental principle of EU legislation.

In 2009, women made up 24% of the members of national parliaments, 26% of national
governments’ members, and 33% of CEOs of European companies, as well as 18% of
professors in European public universities.
I also want to note that 81.3% of young women have completed at least secondary
education, while 59% of university graduates in the European Union are women.

The EU strategy on growth and employment aims to ensure that by 2010, the employment
rate for women reaches 60%. However, the risk of poverty among women is primarily
due to the situation of single-parent families led by women.

I believe it is crucial for us to ensure equal opportunities for women in career

development and planning, as well as support for balancing personal, professional, and
family life.

On this point, I would like to emphasize the importance of childcare facilities.

We want to ensure that 30% of children under the age of 30 can access enrollment
services for children in this age group.

Mr. President, I would like to confirm what Reinhard Bütikofer said.

My group had proposed that we discuss the imminent executions of Uighurs in China and
the protests against the rigged elections in Iran, as these are two countries where
executions are likely to occur soon and therefore require urgent discussion.

It is true that the Chinese have set a global record for executions, as you said, and that the
Chinese government is unjust because it disregards human rights.

I want to make it clear that this is an intolerable situation.

However, at the Presidents' Conference, we called for keeping these two issues separate
from the current matters we are discussing, in other words, the upcoming executions, and
the question of EU-China relations on economic matters, cultural, political, and defense
issues.

We want to discuss this at the EU-China summit and summarize it in a resolution.

This is why the resolution coming out of this matter has nothing to do with immediate
issues.

This is why our group is urging a vote on the essential matter we proposed, not the one
you have suggested.

Mr. President, I also wish to put forward a resolution vote to stress this joint motion, as its
importance currently stands.

The amendments presented here in this chamber have been misunderstood due to a major
mistake.

It is completely wrong to claim that even a refugee from Camp Ashraf or an alternative
camp was transferred to Europe or Iraq with the assistance of the High Commissioner.
I challenge anyone to ask the High Commissioner if any refugees have been transferred at
any point.

This is all completely false, and its purpose is to facilitate a massacre.

That is all, and nothing more, and I would ask the authors of these shameful amendments
to withdraw them as they are an affront to this Parliament.

I voted in favor of the report on forest preparation for combating climate change.

In view of the economic, social, and environmental importance of forests in the context of
climate change mitigation and adaptation, the need to strengthen EU policy in sustainable
development and forest protection, especially regarding legislation and management to
prevent forest fires, has been highlighted.

This report emphasized the importance that the new Common Agricultural Policy will
have for all Member States.

The protection of areas with natural handicaps will be an important point of this policy to
be implemented by the EU and Member States, and thus subsidies will be practically
enforced.

The EU Commission must take this support into account, especially when identifying the
parameters that will define such areas.

The Commission should not overlook the fact that the recovery of areas with natural
handicaps will provide solid support for farms affected by the current major crisis and
help maintain the environment in good condition.

I remind you that this can be achieved not only in theory but also in practice by allocating
adequate funds for the protection and restoration of these areas.

By doing so, we will be able to provide restoration and incentives for the economic
development of agriculture in all sectors with development potential and help in market-
related issues, such as agricultural production of specific local food products, and
landscape and environmental protection.

I thank Mr. Dorfman and congratulate him on his excellent report.

On behalf of the EPP, I did not support the report on EU agriculture and international
trade.

While the report makes some valuable points about protecting the interests of our
agricultural industry, I believe it includes sections that are overly protectionist and have
set unrealistic conditions for the EU’s current and future negotiations on trade
agreements.

Furthermore, the reinstatement of protective measures within the EU to shield EU

agricultural production from external competition is outside the EPP’s position on CAP
reforms.
We have always argued for promoting an effective and competitive agricultural sector,
providing better deals for consumers, and offering market access opportunities to less
economically developed countries by removing trade barriers.

Mr. President, I would like to express my dissatisfaction and curiosity, as I presented an

oral question on this debate, which was supported by 48 MEPs, gathered in zero time, and
there are still members who have said they want to support it.

Still, to my surprise, no one has responded to me on why, when, and on what grounds the
oral question was not accepted for debate.

Am I suddenly against some other kind of earthquake?

Is this a new earthquake, is there some other reason for it?

I reiterate, as my starting point, the last fatal earthquake and its victims, and the resulting
cultural loss and devastation, and we should highlight the European dimension of this
trend.

Considering that I was the sole rapporteur of the European institution’s report on
earthquakes.

I thank you and look forward to your response.

Under the proposed report on controlling the European Parliament and Council
regulations, new rules for implementing the Lisbon Treaty have been encouraged to
ensure the effectiveness of powers of member states.

This is a sensitive matter, at least not in agriculture and fisheries.

The difficulties in adopting current legislation in accordance with the provisions of the
Lisbon Treaty are of the highest importance, especially for those policies not adopted
under the regulatory procedure.

Only the examination of new legislation, which has been heavily amended by the
European Parliament and Council, will be able to indicate whether this path will result in
the effectiveness and implementation of European policies.

Mr. President, let me briefly address two issues.

First, the duty of providing assistance is clearly incompatible with Austria's neutrality,
and for this reason, it would be important to include the following points in this report.

First, it is important to state that the duty to provide assistance is not legally binding;
secondly, that the use of military means is not required; and thirdly, that individual
member states maintain the freedom to decide what assistance they actually provide.

The committee did not accept this, primarily from a content perspective.
In my opinion, the manner in which it was rejected also demonstrates a severe lack of
respect.

I demand from you, Baroness Ashton, more respect for the citizens of Austria in this
highly sensitive area.

My second point concerns the minority report.

Of course, the standard of democracies and societies is repeatedly demonstrated by how

they treat minorities.

To me, it is a very good thing that we have the option of a minority report.

I do not agree with all the points contained within it, but I am very pleased that Mrs.
Leising made use of this option.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I am confident that, with all seriousness, we can say
that we stand at a crossroads in Europe, and it is a crossroads where two major crises
require action from us at the same time.

The first of these is the economic and financial crisis, and as a result, the dramatic
consequences of the Euro crisis, in my opinion, are based on a one-sided and unstable
development model based on debt and irregularities, which has rapidly eroded the
capacity for stability, social cohesion, and public budgets in our member states and across
Europe.

The second major crisis, which we are much less aware of, is what I see as the crisis of
democracy and the rule of law, related to the fact that we are increasingly unable to make
decisions at the nation-state level and can only go beyond it, the consequence of which is
less rather than more democracy, and that we lose people's consent and acceptance.

Therefore, we must reflect very carefully on what we need to do.

We understand that we need a stability mechanism, it is just that we do not believe it goes
deep enough, as it deals with symptoms rather than causes.

The intervention is one-sided and affects public expenditure, wages, pensions, and social
welfare.

Speculation has been highly profitable and continues, and the growing unequal
distribution of wealth and income in Europe is not being addressed.

We are not asking those who made a profit from such speculation to dip into their
pockets, and this means we are not going far.

My second point is that what we are doing here is the creation of a mechanism outside the
community method.

Yet, Europe is exactly the model where such cooperation between states on their own
initiative can be based on social cohesion and more democracy.
Through the Lisbon Treaty, we committed to revising the treaty in the future so that it
would become a subject of deeper democratic debate.

Now, with the first revision of the treaty, we are doing the opposite.

We want this stability mechanism, but we do not want it at the expense of European
democracy, citizens' participation, and the community method.

We do not want it as a further retreat of interfaith Europe, but rather as a step towards a
more shared and more democratic Europe.

That is why we have proposed amendments, which concern both content and procedure.

We are in close contact with the rapporteurs.

We decided not to take a final vote today.

I hope that the progress made in recent days will mean that, in the end, we will be able to
approve it.

However, we will only give our approval if this agreement moves us forward and not if it
leads to backward steps in building our sectarian, democratic, and social Europe.

The current recitation of the directive on the disposal of electrical and electronic
equipment is not only crucial from the perspective of environmental protection and public
health, but also from the perspective of resource efficiency, which is frequently
mentioned nowadays.

It is common that numerous illegal shipments of WEEE leave the European Union every
year, and therefore, it is in the interest of our industry to ensure that member states
maintain precious raw materials within the European Union through appropriate WEEE
storage, which is increasingly produced, and, if possible, also recycled.

Naturally, consumer habits differ from one country to another, and therefore, it should not
be overlooked when setting collection targets in the interest of successful collection.

For example, in Hungary, the average consumer will not replace their television within
two or three years, and even if they do, they are more likely to take it home on the
weekend rather than bring it to collection points.

With all this in mind, the rapporteur, after acknowledging this issue, successfully
accepted a widely supported compromise that set collection targets based on the amount
of electronic waste generated, not the quantity of products placed on the market.

Although there are still many professional details to work on in this area, I am confident
that this could be a good direction.

This is particularly because, in a contradictory way, the Commission's assessment of its

effects does not consider the original collection target as realistic for the older member
states.
Madam President, I believe that both the proposal to close mines and the proposal to
reduce subsidies would be premature and would result in undesirable social, economic,
and regional pressures.

We should not forget that Europe's mining sector provides nearly 100,000 jobs, with
42,000 in coal mining and 55,000 in related sectors, and that some specific regions in
Europe are economically dependent on this sector.

In these regions, a large number of people work in mines or are employed in related jobs.

The harmful effects of these measures could leave society in absolute poverty.

This is why strategies should be quickly developed for the rehabilitation of workers
affected by mine closure plans.

At the same time, special cooperation from European Union structural funds is needed to
provide mutual assistance to the areas that will suffer due to these measures.

Furthermore, mine workers and their families may lose their trust in the political process
if decisions are made that directly affect them, especially if they are made at an
inappropriate time.

We need to focus our attention on the more densely populated areas, which will suffer the
most socially and economically.

I am not convinced that the 2014 deadline for closing mines is a realistic target.

On the other hand, the deadline of 2020, specifically proposed by the Committee on
Industry, Research, and Energy, did not receive adequate positive feedback.

This is why I think we can find common ground with 2018.

I want to mention another point: the coal industry is an essential part of European policy
and is a source of supply within the European Union, guaranteeing supply security.

A transition period is required due to these landmines, and those landmines that could be
competitive will gradually become more competitive to ensure access to European coal
and avoid any social or economic impact.

Mr. President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must bring to life these great
industrial policies on which the European Union was founded.

The case of coal and steel was just like this.

The strength of these policies lies in the fact that they were tools for modernization while
simultaneously being social policies for supporting employees, defense, training, and
protection.

Therefore, I would like to present four proposals.

First, the establishment of a European Support Fund for employees in the automotive
sector, which is more than the modernization fund, as it is necessary to retain employees
in companies during these critical periods by supporting compensation levels in case of
reduced working hours and helping with training within the company.

We cannot agree on the fictitious training of employees who have been made redundant.

Second, we should create an agency for innovation and accelerate the technological gap
between clean vehicles and safe vehicles, and speed up funding for research and
development.

Third, accelerate the renewal of vehicles on the road.

Premiums to scrap vehicles may prove effective.

To avoid the effects of unhealthy competition, they need to be harmonized at the

European Union level.

However, I would like to conclude on this point.

I fully understand the meaning of the word competition, but it is also important.

The policy of coherence should continue to be a key policy of the European Union after
2013, with sufficient funds and, under the following conditions, facilitating the procedure
for allocating resources from structural funds, creating a framework for public-private
partnerships, establishing infrastructure as a growing global prerequisite for competition,
promoting real partnerships with regional and municipal bodies and civil society, and
improving effectiveness at the programming and structural funds stage, as a source of
legal status and transparency, and the application of multi-level governance, both at the
vertical and horizontal levels.

Additionally, there are some other conditions, but if we want to achieve the 2020 strategic
objectives, I believe compliance with the above-mentioned conditions is essential.

While I believe that the member states of the European Union should retain control over
their tax systems, it is clear that cooperation within the European Union and with third
countries is necessary to fight tax fraud.

I am confident that the compromise reached today will prove to be a useful tool in
combating fraud and theft.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the waste crisis in the urban area of Naples has
been ongoing for a full 14 years.

The current landfill sites are overloaded, while the construction of new facilities has been
stopped by the relevant communities.

However, the explanation for citizens' distrust of any waste project can be found in the
fact that at the political level, too many promises have been made during these times, but
in practice, none of these promises have been implemented.
In practice, this issue has been dealt with so far through short-term transitional solutions.

Special commissions have been set up, but they have not been bound to inform local
authorities and residents.

On the other hand, disposable items are a part of everyday life in Italy.

As a result, its daily waste production is much higher than the European average, while at
the same time, little importance is placed on waste separation and recycling.

The sad result of the lack of environmental awareness on both sides is that Campania
today is a region with large areas of pollution, and its residents have a much higher rate of
cancer and respiratory diseases in children in the urban area of Naples compared to the
national average of Italy.

Therefore, there is a pressing need to find solutions and implement them.

Mr. President, first, I would like to thank my fellow member, Mrs. Leutard, for her
excellent work.

Personally, I always advocate for the protection of consumers and the right to
information, and this applies to all food items.

The report we are discussing here includes, among other things, the issue of food
containing additives, enzymes, flavors, and flavored substances, as well as nanomaterials.

Can these things affect our health?

If so, should they be regulated as pharmaceutical products?

It makes sense to legislate on this matter within the European Union, but there are many
different interests involved.

Nanomaterials, cloned animals, and cosmetic products have already been consumed to a
significant extent in other parts of the world.

Who actually wants these new measures?

Is it an industry that wants to sell more products?

Or is it really the consumer?

I am not sure it is the latter.

I am confident that European Union citizens want good food in their supermarkets with
clear ingredient labeling.

In my home country, I see more and more consumers choosing organic products, which
indicate good animal welfare standards and no artificial additives.
Finally, I would like to say something about cloned animals and thank Commissioner
Dalli for his comments on this subject.

In Europe, we can easily feed ourselves without the need for cloned products.

My own small country, with a population of 5 million, produces approximately 25 million

pigs and more than 100 million chickens annually without the use of cloning.

The Rapporteur opposes a convention, as changes in the agreement are only temporary
measures.

I do not view this situation equally because it also raises concerns about democratic
issues.

France has a different electoral system, so it does not have the option to advance
democratically and directly elected members beyond the list.

For this reason, I voted against this report.

Madam President, the EU's accession to the ECHR has been a long time coming. It is an
essential part of the framework promoted by the Court of Justice and the external
oversight of the Court in Strasbourg.

This is a necessary complex step because it is a quid pro quo for binding the basic Charter
of Fundamental Rights.

It signals a fresh agreement between traditional British views, such as those supporting
the Intergovernmental Council of Europe, and federalists like me, who are in favor of the
supranational national approach.

In the context of coalition politics in the UK, such alignment between the British Liberal
Democrats and the Conservative parties is highly appropriate.

I voted in favor of the resolution titled "Parties Conference on Key Objectives for Sites,"
because the scope of the next conference of the parties should include the expansion of
the international trade convention on endangered species of wildlife and flora.

Biodiversity is crucial for the well-being and survival of humanity.

We must remain enthusiastic and advocate for the protection of all species at risk of
extinction.

Micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises play a central and key role in the
development of the European economy. They are the primary source of employment and
have a significant impact on European competitiveness and innovation.

Therefore, we can sincerely say that we will not achieve the goals of the Europe 2020
strategy unless we support small and medium-sized enterprises and make it easier for
them to fully utilize a single market.
The solutions provided in the Small Business Act, including fewer bureaucratic barriers,
better access to funding sources, and easier market access, are particularly important and,
in my opinion, ensure the best possible conditions for effective action for SME
development.

However, the effectiveness of these solutions could be jeopardized by the challenges

posed by their implementation at the member state level.

Therefore, I also hope that the member states that have not fully implemented these
measures will make every effort to ensure that this process is completed as soon as
possible.

Considering the challenges in combining EU funds for building and housing renovations
and the actions and funding difficulties of member states, it should be proposed that
national governments create a joint fund, in which they can save money. State funds
cover co-financing.

In other words, unless co-financing is covered by the state, building owners and
homeowners must pay an equivalent amount to carry out renovations.

This is because often, homeowners and house owners are either unable to cover the costs
of renovation with their own money or cannot obtain a bank loan for it.

I welcome the second point of this proposal – which is to directly allocate funds for rural
renovation.

In rural areas, most private homes are heated autonomously, meaning that the cost of
heating systems is not centrally paid, and therefore, it is suggested that a fixed monthly
amount be set to gradually cover the costs of these homes' renovation.

This will make it easier for member states to legally enforce financial support for the
renovation of rural homes.

On the issue of climate change, there is an urgent need for practical measures to prevent
developing countries from being left powerless.

They are the first to be affected, but they lack the appropriate resources to mitigate the
effects caused by developed countries.

If no global action is taken today, future generations will be helpless in the face of the
impacts of climate change.

This is why it is essential for our governments to show political leadership to encourage
other states such as the US and China to reach an agreement.

This commitment should also include the introduction of a tax on financial transactions,
which would not be used for banking sector supervision, but for financing public goods
such as climate change in developing countries and around the world.
Over the past two years, I have expressed concerns on several occasions, both in plenary
sessions of the European Parliament and in its various forums, about the risks of cyanide-
based mining.

Additionally, I wrote a letter to the Environment Commissioner, Mr. Stavros Dimas,

regarding mining projects in Romania and Bulgaria.

The use of cyanide mining technologies is sometimes known as a dangerous chemical

time bomb because of its environmental impact.

Since 1990, there have been thirty severe pollution incidents worldwide caused by
cyanide mining.

The disaster on the Tisza River ten years ago is considered the most severe European
environmental disaster since Chernobyl.

Only in Romania, in the past few days, the River Aries, which flows into the Tisza, was
contaminated by a gold mine that was shut down 40 years ago.

Last year, when a mining company was visited nearby, President Traian Băsescu himself
said that we cannot sit on an environmental bomb, because it is simply murder.

Considering new mining development plans in Romania, I emphasize that the ban on
cyanide-based mining is not just a Romanian issue and, in no way, a racial issue, but a
global matter that European Union member states and both groups in the European
Parliament can reach a reasonable agreement on.

Europe cannot remain indifferent to past cyanide disasters or any new threats in the
future.

Protecting people and our environment is in all our interests, not just from radiation or air
pollution, but from cyanide poison as well.

I urge this honorable chamber to vote in favor of our proposal.

Mr. President, I want to emphasize how important it is to draft clear competitive

principles that are helpful and beneficial for SMEs.

They are particularly important for the entire European economy, not to mention their
immense potential.

In this regard, I believe it would be appropriate to include a section dedicated to small

businesses with an emphasis on fair competition.

Competition policy should assist in promoting and enforcing open standards and mutual
capability.

This will prevent technical lock-ins by market players.

I would like to conclude by saying that the implementation of a successful competition
policy and the unregulated operation of the internal market are conditions for sustainable
economic growth in the European Union.

Mr. President, in September, I contacted you regarding the continuity of operations at the
Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant.

From your response, I got the impression that either the Commission is unaware of the
real situation, has not been informed, or is trying to terminate the MEP.

Therefore, Mr. President, I believe you know that no storage of nuclear fuel has been
built, and the fuel rods will not be placed in the reactor, which will reduce nuclear safety
in the region.

That’s the first point.

Secondly, I think you know that alternative generators will only be built three years later,
leading to an electricity shortage in Lithuania.

That’s the second point.

Thirdly, I am sure you know that the conditions I mentioned allow for the continuation of
the nuclear power plant's operations, and it is not prepared to shut down.

My question, Mr. President, is who will take responsibility for the diminished nuclear
safety in this region and the increasing threat to European Union citizens?

Madam President, I think we all agree that the attempt to execute Tariq Aziz, the former
Prime Minister of Iraq under Saddam Hussein's regime, is clearly a regrettable irony.

This is the person who is already imprisoned for life.

We do not agree with him, but I don’t think we can, at the same time, discuss and
condemn this attempt at execution while mentioning the more than 900 death sentences
imposed by the Iraqi Presidential Council.

We are obligated to give equal weight to those who are very famous as well as those who
are less known.

Clearly, we also agree with condemning Islamic terrorism against Christian communities,
but we cannot overlook the 30,000 people detained without charges in Iraq due to military
occupation, nor can we ignore the path that has fueled this conflict and issues within Iraqi
society.

The issue with this resolution is that it takes very little account of these concerns.

Therefore, my group has its own resolution.

Madam President, thank you for this debate and the kind words from the Commission.
My two shortcomings are related to the past, specifically from 2008 and recent years.

First, an important issue identified was transparency.

I want to remind you that we have made great progress together.

All information about beneficiaries of EU funds is now public, and this has been a
significant change during this period.

The second truth from the past is that we discussed how much money has been wasted
and how much should be recovered.

I would like to clarify this with a number, from a very complex subject.

It is in the annex of our synthesis report from 2008, and it summarizes the write-offs of
recoveries, meaning an amount that was completely and irreversibly lost.

In the 2008 synthesis report, it was €18,380,363.22, which is less than 0.01% of the EU
budget. It was lost.

We have discussed all the billions that were mismanaged in structural funds, but in the
end, something came out.

The process is not perfect, and we have to work hard on it, and sometimes mistakes are
rectified.

It is a long process, and we should take it very seriously.

Now, some points for the future.

Very soon, we will discuss the new financial regulations and the new budgetary
framework.

Many things are linked to this process.

The national declarations and the participation of member states need a strong legal
foundation.

We can clearly move forward with this simplicity, many of which have been discussed
here several times.

As President Kaldira already mentioned, the objectives are defined through more than
500 programs of the Commission, Parliament, and Council.

Each program has its legal basis, its own objectives, and everything must be measured,
including the money spent according to those objectives.

This is an important issue.

In the last plenary meeting when we discussed the 2007 exit, one idea was to reduce the
number of programs and have bigger projects and programs that are easier to survey.

This is an important issue, and as one member said, it is the matter of rural development,
you cannot measure objectives and say that those objectives are being achieved.

This is an important issue, but it is an issue within the scope of future debates on financial
rules and regulations.

Regarding the discussions, what was highlighted here, I must say that we have made
every effort for good negotiations with the Budget Control Committee and the Court of
Auditors, along with Parliament.

I personally want to discuss everything with people from different perspectives, different
attitudes, and different approaches.

That’s normal life.

What I don’t like is that some people deliberately and consistently use incorrect facts.

When facts are not correct, you cannot have a dialogue.

We can have different evaluations, different interpretations, and different opinions, but
the facts must be accurate.

I strongly wish that in our future dialogues, this principle will be respected as well.

Mr. President, regarding the budget for the Committee on Culture and Education, I am
proud to say that we succeeded in doing in Parliament what the Commission could not
and what the Council did not want to do.

Take notice of the responsibilities in the new Europe 2020 strategy and act with financial
cooperation to achieve the goals set in the strategy.

It is crucial that we invest in education and lifelong learning to create new skills for new
jobs.

Therefore, we would also like to see the Council’s budget support the 2011 position,
which we expect to be accepted by Parliament tomorrow.

Of course, this includes, in particular, an additional €18 million for the lifelong learning
program.

This will allow more than 3,500 European students to participate in Erasmus exchanges.

We want to increase the number of students in vocational training who can access
internships.

We want more adults to receive further training related to EU financial cooperation.

Additionally, €10 million for the People Program, which aims to increase mobility for
doctoral candidates and PhD students, provide opportunities for close collaboration with
industry, and modernize EU universities, as well as provide funds for communication.

We will appreciate the Council’s cooperation on this.

Mr. President, according to CIA and NGO information, 728 detainees passed through
Portuguese regional facilities on their way to Guantanamo between 2002 and 2006.

What are the figures for Spain, Italy, or any other member state?

After failing to secure an exemption from international law in the war on terrorism, the
Union is now trying to move along with Mr. Obama’s promises.

This shows why we still have this alarming call from members urging member states to
take in these innocent detainees who cannot return to their countries due to fear of torture.

This was not done out of solidarity, charity, or even generosity, but purely to comply with
international obligations.

Moving beyond Mr. Obama’s message, will Europe be able to rise? Will Europe not only
be able to investigate, target, and assume its responsibilities but also eliminate its illegal
complexity in execution?

Will Europe be able to reform the control of its intelligence services?

Will the Union be able to restore victims through legal processes and compensation?

I welcome Mr. Barrot’s declaration of this objective.

Mr. President, you see a very happy man in front of you, and not just because the Dutch
team’s victory over Uruguay in the semi-final makes you see a very happy man.

The reason is also that today we are sending a very strong signal to the rest of the world.

Now, five hundred million European citizens no longer want to use illegally harvested
timber, and those who attempt this practice will be punished.

This is a very important signal from the European Union, and it should not be
underestimated.

Deforestation has become a major issue worldwide.

The European Union is now using one of its strongest powers, that is, the power of 500
million consumers.

The festival is fair, but this signal is actually only effective from the European Parliament.

The Council wanted to stop the use of illegally harvested timber, while the European
Parliament wanted to stop it with an important distinction.
As far as I am concerned, this is a huge victory for democracy.

I must thank the Spanish Presidency for the work it has done in obtaining the majority
support in the Council for the ban on the import of illegally harvested timber.

I call on the Council to work towards the proper enforcement of this regulation, because
ultimately, this will be the key to its success.

Unfortunately, if it is not enforced effectively, it will be a paper tiger.

Finally, Mr. President, I would like to warmly thank Mrs. Hasi and her predecessor Mrs.
Lucas for their excellent cooperation.

This is also for those in the shadows.

In my opinion, Parliament has set an example of how it can wield and express its
democratic power.

Mr. President, today, I am representing our shadow among the Environmental, Public
Health, and Food Safety Committee, Mrs. Weisberber, who is on maternity leave.

We all send her our best wishes.

She has done excellent work on this dossier.

Overall, we are all happy with the compromise.

It was not as difficult as in the case of cars, because this is not such an emotional topic.

Nonetheless, we have had to face major environmental and economic challenges.

From the perspective of climate policy, it is crucial that the burden be shared equally
across all sectors, and therefore, Nick must also contribute to it.

However, we also had to ensure that we do not burden Nick so much that it leads to its
collapse.

What do I mean by this?

Certainly, for small and medium-sized businesses, the costs involved in such measures
represent a significant challenge.

Small businesses will carefully consider whether it is beneficial to replace their old
vehicles and invest in a new company.

Therefore, we need to focus more on the economic aspects and less on the technical
aspects.

Technically, we could achieve a lot, but the costs would certainly fall on SMEs, and that
would not yield the desired results.
We will have to wait a few years to see if this regulation is effective, because it will only
be when we actually reach the emission levels that we will know.

If we end up imposing penalties, we will not achieve our goal.

We need to keep a very close eye on ways to control the situation.

Madam President, my colleagues’ report rightly emphasizes the significant discrepancies

in how serious traffic offenses are treated in different member states.

Therefore, I support the possible measures to harmonize offenses and the establishment of
a European penalty and harmonization mechanism at the EU level.

Written explanation of the vote

I would like to remind you that in 2009, when the EU economic recovery plan was first
discussed, the Commission pledged to allocate 1 billion euros for energy savings in
homes.

Unfortunately, this action was not taken at the right time.

In fact, a small amount was allocated to the Smart Cities initiative, simply because,
eventually, if no funds were used, the Commission was required to allocate this amount to
the Smart Cities initiative, which is happening under this regulation.

I proposed an amendment requiring that the administrative costs and associated costs of
creating and implementing this tool should not exceed 5% of each usage price, so that the
largest part of the money does not go to financial intermediaries, but rather goes to
projects related to energy savings in homes and the use of renewable energy resources.

I also called for maximum transparency and the development of a website for use,
whenever this tool is used, to mention the applied model and provide it free of charge to
those interested so that we can benefit from best practices.

I would like to congratulate Mrs. Van Brempt for this report.

I believe that energy efficiency should be given the highest priority in the European
Union's energy strategy.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are an essential element of economic growth and job
creation in the European Union, with over 100 million of them, and they play an
important role in contributing to social cohesion.

However, these companies face limited access to financial credit and loans, and the
economic crisis is exacerbating this situation, already complicated by administrative
burdens.

I see the effort to improve the widespread positive functioning of the SME finance
system.
I believe that such efforts include increasing the role of the European Investment Bank in
loan schemes and implementing tools under the Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme, such as the Micro to Medium Enterprises Program's joint European
resources and actions to support microfinance institutions under the Joint Europe
Program.

I also support making it easier for SMEs to access structural funds, especially regarding
guarantee schemes, to prevent their duplication.

It would also be advisable to consider new and effective financial instruments for the next
multiannual financial framework, such as joint instruments with the EIB.

Madam President, Commissioner, during the crisis, we can see for ourselves how
important the role of industry is in our economy.

Unfortunately, our relevant policies are still often based on the belief that markets should
self-regulate.

In this regard, the Europe 2020 strategy is a pioneering initiative that first recognized the
need for a new perspective.

The European industry must maintain its leading position in key sectors, and must not be
allowed to fall behind events.

We must understand the new structure of the financial sector and the alignment of
macroeconomic financial policies as priorities, because it is through their reform that we
can ensure the success of our industrial policy.

We need a new, comprehensive regulatory framework that can bring the financial system
back into productive investment.

An industrial base that is globally competitive and focused on production, a knowledge-

based industry, should be the center of our industrial policy.

However, for this purpose, we will need the entire innovation chain.

In this matter, we should not only talk about technological innovation but also about
product design and quality innovation.

Furthermore, we should encourage harmonization in this sector.

This includes the connection between energy policy and industrial policy.

Energy supply is an essential element, and new, growing markets are in renewable energy
sources, which will result in the creation of new jobs.

Reliable access to raw materials is also extremely necessary, and we face an increasingly
serious challenge.
In addition to obtaining existing resources, we must also be able to realize our recycling
efforts.

We must do everything within our power to strengthen SMEs, as they are key players in
European industrial production.

We must encourage their greater participation in public procurement and ensure they have
access to favorable bank loans.

By stating that Denmark has submitted an application for help for 951 redundant jobs in
45 companies working in the NUTS II region of Nordjylland under the NC-AE Revision
2 Division 28, I voted in favor of the resolution because I agree with the Commission’s
proposal and the amendments presented by Parliament.

I also agree that in the Commission's proposal, in its explanatory statement, in line with
Parliament’s requests, clear and detailed information about the application, an analysis of
the eligibility criteria, and an explanation of the reasons for its approval should be
provided.

Mr. President, I have both a very difficult task and a very easy one.

It is very difficult because this dossier is very complex and extremely sensitive, and it is a
dossier on which I have personally worked very little.

It is very easy because this is a report by my distinguished colleague, John Boyce, who,
as you mentioned, is recovering from major heart surgery in Brussels a few weeks ago.

He has brought this dossier to such a successful conclusion today, and remarkably, he laid
the foundation for this success in his original report on patient mobility in June 2005.

I am sure he would also personally like to thank the Commissioner, our group secretariat,
and indeed his own research assistant for making this broad agreement possible.

With his help, John tried to highlight a very absurd area and to clarify that where
uncertainty already existed, these two principles must be consistently based: the patient
must always come first, and the patient's choice should be based on needs, not reasons.

For the past 10 years, European citizens have been going to courts to fight for their right
to travel to another member state for treatment.

It is clear that patients want this right, and that they are entitled to it.

To obtain this, they should not have to go to court.

Now we have the opportunity to propose that we make it a reality.

Now is the time for us, as politicians, to take responsibility and transform the need for
first judges into legal validity for ourselves.

Most people would always prefer to be treated near home.

However, there will always be patients who, for any reason, want to travel to another
member state for treatment.

If patients choose this option, we must ensure that the conditions under which they do so
are transparent and fair.

We must ensure that they know how much they will be charged, what quality and safety
standards they can expect, and what rights they have if any mistakes are made.

This report has considered all these issues.

Let me clarify that this right for patients should not, in any way, be detrimental to the
abilities of member states to provide standard healthcare for all their citizens.

This report does not tell member states how to organize their healthcare systems. It does
not determine what standard of care they should provide.

In fact, it helps member states safeguard their national health systems, for example, by
choosing a prior authorization system in certain situations.

However, such prior authorization should not be used to limit patient choice.

In fact, the increasing availability of cross-border healthcare should encourage national

systems to improve the quality of care they provide.

I look forward to comments from my colleagues following the discussion now underway.

Dementia, and particularly Alzheimer’s disease, is not only a serious medical issue but
also an extremely sensitive ethical and social issue, which will increase in intensity as
Europe’s population ages.

The submitted document focuses specifically on various aspects of this condition,

particularly early diagnosis, research, and improving patient care.

However, in my view, it is equally important to emphasize the need for cooperation for
the relatives of those suffering from dementia and to stress the need for non-
discriminatory access to high-quality health and social care.

The role of local authorities, whether municipal or regional, is of great importance here,
as are volunteer organizations, which can practically respond to the increasing demand
for these services.

The European initiative on Alzheimer’s and other dementias is also very important in
starting a serious and open societal debate on this condition in the broadest sense of the
word.

Therefore, I warmly welcome and support this initiative.

Mr. President, the voice of a woman from Srebrenica, tears streaming down her cheeks.
She embraced me, kissed me, and said, "Please, Mama, go."

They grabbed her. I refused to leave, kneeling and begging them to kill me instead.

"You have taken my only child."

"I don't want to go anywhere."

"Kill me, and that will be the end for us."

This is a moving statement from a Bosnian woman who lost her husband and 12-year-old
son during the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995. Her voice and the suffering of her
companions continue to disturb us today, partly because of the invaluable research by
committed scientists, including Amsterdam’s Professor Selma Ledisdoff.

In other words, the real consideration for those left behind.

Srebrenica, July 1995. At that time, I was a foreign representative for a Dutch paper and
had closely observed the scene of the Bosnian war.

I can't even begin to tell you how embarrassed and disappointed I was about the
international concept of a safe haven, certainly as a Dutch citizen.

Come this evening with stories, how the war disappeared, and repeat them a hundred
times, I will cry every time.

From now on, the memorial culture of my country, the words of this famous poet of the
Second World War, will also come on July 11, when we commemorate the dear victims
of Srebrenica and Potocari.

Mr. President, there is a lot I want to say on this topic, but I don't have the time.

Therefore, I will talk about the moral crisis.

Mr. Van Rompuy said the Council discussed the moral crisis, but did not elaborate. I want
him to do so as well.

For example, in my own country, Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide played financial
ping-pong so that auditors could not discover the true state of their finances.

What happened?

The CEO of Irish Nationwide sent millions into his pocket while taxpayers' wages
dramatically decreased.

Two weeks ago, Anglo Irish Bank's management received a wage increase while
taxpayers acquired 40 billion euros, and their bills will increase in the coming years.
Unless the individuals responsible for these wrongdoings face individual and institutional
accountability, Mr. Van Rompuy, not only history will repeat itself, but it will repeat in
exactly the same way as it happened in the first place.

I want him to talk a little about this crisis.

Mr. President, the Irish people would certainly be very foolish if they follow the skeptical
wing of the British Conservative Party.

I assure Mr. Hannan that the Irish people will not follow the skeptical wing of the British
Conservative Party - and they never will.

Its agenda is not even in the best interests of the UK - it is in the best interests of the
Conservative Party.

It is a disgrace that the country that gave us Winston Churchill sent these people to this
Parliament to defend their narrow interests over the interests of the British public and
Europe.

It is strange to see these British Conservatives behave in such a ridiculous manner with
Sinn Féin party’s bad fellows, who are neither present here today nor will be tomorrow.

They do not attend this Parliament.

They do not participate in the committees of this Parliament.

I don't know how they draw their salaries and expenses, but they told this Parliament that
approving this and other reports was the worst thing in this term, and then they don’t even
come here to vote.

It is utterly disgraceful.

Mr. President, I have no problem with the machine.

I just want to give one piece of advice.

Some members have a habit of not reading the numbers for roll-call votes.

Since we now have a large number of roll-call votes and amazing screens, I would advise
you to perhaps accept this task.

Madam President, Serbia's progress towards EU membership is accelerating, and rightly

so, its evidence is in the excellent report by Kacin.

When I was in Serbia last October, I was impressed by Serbia's dynamic, Western-based
democratic government's determination and effort.

Serbia still has a lot of work to do on judicial reforms and the fight against organized
crime.
We in the ECR also hope that Ratko Mladic will be captured and sent to The Hague,
although it is by no means certain that he is on Serbian soil.

However, it is absolutely essential that Serbia’s progress be taken advantage of and

reciprocated by the European Union and its member states, for example, by now ratifying
the SAA, at least because some of Serbia’s neighbors, like Croatia, are much further
along in the path to EU membership.

Serbia's relationship with Kosovo is awkward but not irreconcilable.

I personally believe that a land-based, equal, comprehensive, and final settlement for the
division and peace principles in the Middle East would be the best way forward.

I believe that the European Union should properly review this authority during the
upcoming dialogue conducted by the High Representative.

To withdraw from it would be dangerously shortsighted and would merely keep Kosovo's
state recognition at the European Union, NATO, and UN levels.

Madam President, Mr. Barroso, Commissioner, Minister of State Geri, the Schengen
system is one of the most achievable of the European Union's priorities.

If European citizens were asked, they would mention the free movement without controls
as something very important for them in the European Union.

That is why it is crucial to keep this system secure and make every possible effort to
maintain free movement for our citizens across Europe without borders.

It is essential that our fundamental goal remains.

Values, especially when challenged, must be preserved.

Today, the challenge is the increase in migration and refugees.

However, in order to address these challenges, we need solid proposals and solutions.

This starts with the separation and clarification of the issue, meaning that we distinguish
the refugee issue from illegal immigration, use our current principles that we can unite on,
such as solidarity and cooperation, and use our current institutions like Frontex, or our
current laws.

I also welcome Hungary’s position and Minister of State Geri’s position, and Mr.
Barroso’s words, who said that the aim is to strengthen Schengen and to run it more
efficiently, not to withdraw from it.

Mr. President, I thank the member for this question.

A condition for joining the Schengen zone is indeed to strengthen the external borders.
Especially since they are a shared concern, it is the responsibility of all member states to
ensure that the external borders are strong.

Once these conditions are met, you can join Schengen.

Countries like Bulgaria and Romania have done just that, and that is why we assisted
Greece at the Turkish-Greek border through the Frontex mission.

So, yes, this shows that strengthening the external borders is also a common concern.

Mr. President, have I understood you correctly, that the date to exit this situation could be
2011?

Mr. President, I want to say that I did not come to Parliament to define a completely new
law on abortion in Spain.

What concerns me is human life, and I am particularly concerned about women whose
lives are at risk due to gender-based violence, and I am here to provide them a place
where they can live freely and safely.

The Parliament's resolution of February 2, 2006, proposed that member states adopt a
zero-tolerance approach to all forms of violence against women and take the necessary
actions to ensure better protection for the victims.

The Stockholm Programme, adopted in this House, established a field of freedom, justice,
and security for all European citizens, and the fight against gender-based violence was
considered a priority in this programme.

This reflects my request from the Spanish Presidency to promote a European Protection
Order for those affected by gender-based violence during its mandate to ensure that
victims of such crimes receive the same level of protection in all member states.

In a Europe without borders, the fight against gender-based violence must also be without
borders, and member states should make serious efforts to harmonize their legislation so
that the fight against mistreatment of women can overcome legislative obstacles and,
eventually, we can protect their lives and the lives of their children, at least within the
European Union.

Therefore, I ask the Commission and the Council to do everything necessary and move
forward in every way with the European Protection Order for affected individuals, which
is a very effective tool to ensure that those who do not respect women and their dignity do
not have the right to live freely and safely without consequences.

Madam President, Mrs. Quinn, ladies and gentlemen, we have gathered here to review the
Seventh Framework Programme for Research, which has a budget of 51 billion euros.

This is the largest programme in the world, and this amount should be compared to the 17
billion euros from the 2000 and 2006 programmes, which covered five years, while this
one covers seven.
The negotiations on the Seventh Framework Programme took place in 2006 and covered
the period from 2007 to 2013. After these negotiations, we now have three new elements
that require our attention to direct the focus towards evaluating the programme.

First, the European Union needs to overcome the failure of the Lisbon Strategy, which
was formulated by the European Council in 2000 with the idea of making the EU the
world’s knowledge-based economy.

Now, we have the Europe 2020 Strategy.

The second new element is the failure of the Constitutional Treaty.

Today, the Lisbon Treaty is in force and brings new powers with it.

The third new element is the financial crisis that reached us from the United States in
2008.

In light of these three new elements, we should consider the years 2011 to 2013.

We are living in the extremely delicate years following the crisis, and, in this era of
limited public resources, the risk is significant.

In the first three years, there is a 26 billion euro programme.

We still have a 28.5 billion euro programme for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Therefore, we must think carefully about the messages we want to send to the European
Commission to align its research policy with today’s major challenges.

The remarks of other speakers will extend what I have said, but I would like to emphasize
two points: first, simplifications, and second, the responses to these big challenges we
face.

Regarding simplicity, my colleague, Mrs. Carvalhô, will go into detail on her excellent
report, and we welcome the Commission's decision of January 24, 2011, to establish the
unique registration facility, but we should go further.

We need to simplify the future and leave the past behind.

As a former member of the European Court of Auditors, you are well aware of all these
matters.

The reform of financial regulation over three years will enable us to establish the legal
foundation for this simplicity, but I do not think that taking risks with tolerable mistakes
is the right way forward.

We need to simplify our regulations, and these simplifications will reduce the number of
mistakes.

In cases of disputes between the Commission's auditors and bodies being audited, I
suggest allowing the option of independent counter-audits and permitting an arbitrator to
intervene so that we do not need to resort to the High Court. This would help resolve any
disputes between audited bodies and the Commission.

Commissioner, we really need to solve this issue.

Next, we face major challenges.

We need to involve the industrial sector, particularly with European patents, more in the
Europe 2020 industrial policy, and we must increase participation by small and medium-
sized enterprises and women.

Infrastructure should be funded through the Framework Programme, the European

Investment Bank, Structural Funds, and national policies.

We must ensure the peaceful distribution of research infrastructure throughout the

European Union, as well as promote excellence.

Today, we do not know which countries will be awarded the Nobel Prize in the next five
years.

We must also respect our international commitments, such as the ITAR.

Finally, for the future, we propose in this report to double the amount of research funds to
establish this European Research Area, with the help of the European Research Council.

This is the key to funding our societal ambitions and respecting our environmental
commitments for our development.

In March, there was another UN summit, this time on the trade of endangered animals.

This is an opportunity to speak again with one voice for the European Union and, above
all, to play an important role in science.

Let’s look at what science tells us.

Choosing short-term interests may mean choosing short-term interests for fishermen and
hunters, but in the long run, it means the extinction of animal species, as well as the
collapse of many sectors.

Opting for long-term alternatives, in the case of bluefin tuna, we are talking about 2012.

They are not long-term, they are tomorrow. Therefore, you must follow the European
Parliament's recommendations regarding a ban on the trade of bluefin tuna, as well as
impose a ban on polar bear trade and add the African elephant to the list to prevent its
further hunting.

Finally, a delegation from the European Parliament will also be going to Doha.

I hope that the EP’s delegation will also play its role in determining the EU's status to
ensure that together we can safeguard these animal species for our future.
Madam President, this is a very simple amendment, just changing to "disabled persons"
or "persons with disabilities."

We never use passive words in English.

Mr. President, Baroness Ashton, I am deeply concerned about the situation in Iraq.

The recent uprising there was ruthlessly suppressed.

Nineteen people were killed, and several hundred were injured.

It now appears that Ayad Allawi, whose Iraqiya party had won the elections last March, is
going to withdraw from the coalition because Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has refused
many of the promises made to Iraqiya in the coalition.

If this happens, we will go back to a sectarian government supported by both al-Hakim

and Muqtada al-Sadr at Tehran's urging, and we will have an unstable situation here
where the party that won the election is no longer in government.

In terms of the future of the Middle East, this certainly cannot be acceptable.

Madam President, I have no reason to explain how my group’s voting list was compiled.

We have discussed it, and after reviewing it again, we are able to give this motion our full
support.

Mr. President, now we will appoint the three chairpersons for the new financial
supervisory authorities.

I would like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that none of these three are
women.

I think it is very surprising that the Commission cannot come up with a single woman
who is qualified for one of these positions.

Mr. President, Commissioner, in the bank assessments made in 2010, it was equally
acknowledged that one of the concerns in these tests has been the national logic, whether
in terms of methodology, evaluation, or criteria selection.

Later, in the report you kindly mentioned, for which I was the rapporteur, this Parliament
called for strengthening the European dimension in dealing with banking crises.

In the meantime, the Systemic Risk Board and the European Banking Authority have
been established, indicating that, ultimately, we are going to provide the banking sector
with a European dimension.

However, the stress tests we are discussing were mentioned by the European Council on
March 24 and 25.

I will read it in English, as it is the document I have before me.

Member States will prepare specific and ambitious strategies for restructuring weak
institutions, including private sector solutions, before the publication of the results. But a
solid framework for providing government aid when necessary, in accordance with state
aid rules.

Therefore, in terms of stress tests, we are again recommending that it is up to member

states to strengthen the national dimension of resolving stress tests in the international
sector.

This brings me to a fundamental question.

With such an approach, will we not miss the golden opportunity to ultimately make
regulation European, rather than solving the regulatory issue with national frameworks?

Mr. President, the report before us, on which all groups have worked together, represents
a very good foundation on which the European Union can shape its policy towards Iran.

The issues we disagree on with the Iranian government include its nuclear program, its
relations with its neighboring countries, the dire human rights situation in the country,
and the difficult economic situation.

Unemployment has risen dramatically. One in four Iranians lives below the poverty line.

Baroness Ashton, you now have to draw some conclusions from the report.

We should not stand idle while government critics, trade unionists, women’s rights
activists, and people of different beliefs are detained, subjected to violence, and
murdered.

Through targeted sanctions, we must press those responsible for human rights violations
more clearly than ever before, such as by imposing entry bans or freezing their accounts.

The European External Action Service should equally review which economic sanctions
actually affect the target and which only impact the Iranian people.

A policy of complete isolation will only lead to an eventual dead end and will also fail to
win favor with many Iranians.

Parliament has made it clear with this report that democratic change cannot come from
external military means.

We should stick to a double-track strategy, under which we insist on respect and

compliance with international rights through international agreements while trying to
engage in dialogue.

In this context, we should now understand the demand to open a European Union
delegation in Tehran while the European External Action Service has taken over the
responsibility of representing the European Union in third countries from the rotating EU
Presidency.
For sustainable production and use, the prevention of waste electrical and electronic
equipment and the reuse and recycling of such waste is essential.

Reducing the amount of waste produced and contributing to the efficient use of resources
is very important.

I call on all operators involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment, i.e.
producers, distributors, and consumers, and especially those operators directly involved in
the collection and treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment, to improve their
environmental performance.

Separate collection is a condition for ensuring specific treatment and recycling of WEEE
and is necessary to achieve the selected level of protection for human health and the
environment.

I appeal to consumers to actively participate in the success of such recovery.

For this purpose, easy facilities for the return of WEEE should be put in place, including
public collection points where private households should be able to return their waste at
least for free.

Mr. President, I also want to talk about the discrimination faced by Christians in Africa
and Asia, but of course, I will focus on my strategy regarding a very important issue.

Let us remember that the Danube is Europe’s second-longest river after the Volga.

The Danube flows through 10 European states, and more than 17 states are located in the
Danube River basin.

In fact, this is a specific responsibility, a special challenge, for the European Union,
because, in addition, some of these countries are currently deeply affected by a severe
crisis.

I am also talking about the member states of the European Union.

The European Union is thus demonstrating a particular solidarity.

I hope the same will happen with other matters.

Sometimes we become so tangled up in our daily routines that we fail to fully appreciate
the historical moments passing us by.

The implementation of the Lisbon Treaty is one such moment that will go down in history
and one that our children and future generations will ultimately learn from.

However, on such occasions, we must also consider the significance of such a historical
moment.

I want to briefly reflect on two points.

First, thanks to this treaty, we will finally put an end to what I believe have been futile
debates about European institutions and the European Union’s constitution.

Instead, we are now moving into a better position to confront the realities that Europe
faces, such as the economic situation, employment, climate change, and immigration.

These are the challenges that our voters want us to address.

The second reflection is about the role of Parliament.

This will be the last time that Parliament meets with all the power it has gained so far.

This Parliament was created fifty years ago, and its members were appointed by national
parliaments.

Today, it is a Parliament that shares the power to make decisions, legislate, and create
laws together with the Council of Ministers.

I am confident that as a result, the European Union will form laws that better reflect the
interests of our citizens.

This Parliament will be committed to protecting the interests of citizens in the laws we
enact.

I support the fact that next week, the Council will consider the historical significance of
the meeting and that together we will work to overcome the challenges we face.

The citizens' initiative, which gives one million European citizens the right to propose
legislative projects, has introduced the concept of participatory democracy into the
European Union, as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty.

This is a new, significant step the European Union is taking, and therefore Parliament will
receive citizens' opinions, representing them on whether it is working well or not.

I welcome the fact that Parliament has, as far as possible, made efforts to simplify and
make the legislative procedure easier for European Union citizens, as they are the ones
who will use it in practice.

We should not need a complex procedure that leaves European Union citizens frustrated.

The key demands of Parliament have been accepted, such as the acknowledgment of
checks from the start, rather than waiting for 300,000 signatures to begin the process.

I consider it a victory for Parliament and the European Union's citizens that the minimum
number of member states required to collect signatures is a quarter, not a third, as
originally proposed.

I hope that when Parliament's decision comes into effect in 2012, more initiatives will be
presented by European Union citizens.
Like the report on NATO's role in the European Union's security architecture, this report
also identifies the goal of reaffirming and strengthening the European Union as a political
and military bloc, in partnership with the United States and within NATO's framework,
with an aggressive stance.

Among other important and enlightened aspects, this report and resolution have renewed
NATO's aggressive and global vision, considering that the latest European security
strategy and future NATO strategic concept should be mutually coordinated, and this
should be reflected in the declaration to be adopted by the NATO summit in Strasbourg in
April 2009.

In fact, it goes further as it calls for the establishment of the European Union's operational
headquarters.

Finally, the report and resolution have strongly condemned, not with the intention of
militarizing the European Union or the Lisbon so-called treaty that institutionalizes this
militarization.

In Ireland, those who condemn and reject the military nature of this proposed treaty argue
that its ratification would mean further militarization of international relations, a
permanent arms race, and further intervention and war.

Those living in Portugal, such as the Portuguese Communist Party, have rejected this
treaty and called for a referendum and broader national debate on its serious
consequences for Portugal, Europe, and the world, and for peace.

Madam President, as a new member of this chamber, I have listened to many speakers
who have paid attention to Mr. Barroso's track record in office and expressed numerous
concerns.

Many of which I agree with.

Mr. Barroso, our paths on the Lisbon Treaty are completely diverging.

However, you have shown great interest in my constituency in Northern Ireland.

For this commitment, I thank you.

We value the support of Commission officials and close business relations with Northern
Ireland at all levels.

I look forward to continuing this relationship and benefiting from it in my constituency.

You will know from our past the impact of investment in violence, and the need for new
roads and rail links.

You will learn about the enormous potential of the economy through the development of
tourism.
To assist our economic development, I would ask the Commission to examine what
resources will be provided for years of low-cost compensation.

As many members of this chamber have said today, it is the process and delivery that
counts.

Mr. President, I would just like to strongly agree with my colleague, Dr. Charles
Tannock.

His closing remarks, if not interrupted, would have had the effect that the European
Union should encourage trans-Caspian pipelines up to Central Asia in order to reduce the
risk of dependence by monopoly, so that we can possibly avoid becoming victims of any
of our neighbors' foreign policy objectives.

Madam President, I would like to ask whether you realize that, in Article 6, the central
word before the word "state" needs to be removed to make it consistent with the other
statements.

The report by Kattiania on the state of fundamental rights in the European Union from
2004 to 2008 emphasized the need for protection of minorities' rights in order to combat
all forms of discrimination against vulnerable groups.

I welcome this report, which includes the key elements developed in the written statement
on ending homelessness from the streets, prepared from Statement 111, which was
adopted by the European Parliament in April 2008.

I particularly welcome this report for introducing emergency winter plans for the
homeless, defining a framework for homelessness, and gathering reliable statistics on
homelessness across the European Union.

Ending homelessness from the streets in the European Union is a fundamental issue.

This report is an additional step in pushing the European Council, Commission, and
member states to act on homelessness.

Finally, the Lisbon Treaty will not advance the situation of fundamental rights within the
European Union.

Supporting this report does not mean supporting the Lisbon Treaty.

In fact, the European Parliament's refusal to respect the Irish vote is contrary to the spirit
of the Charter.

As was emphasized last month in the EP's resolution on the European Union's strategy for
the Danube region, the current draft resolution emphasizes that the European Union's
macro-regional strategies' added value is in multi-level cooperation, coordination, and
better strategic investment with available funding, rather than in additional allocation of
resources.
The draft resolution highlights Sweden's presidency of the Council's new conclusions,
noting no new legislation and no new budget.

Furthermore, REGI wanted this strategy to operate according to a top-up perspective,

involving all stakeholders in its design and implementation.

From the Greens' perspective, we proposed an amendment focusing on the development

of marine energy, prevention and combating of marine pollution by ships, and the
development of marine shipping routes, all of which were adopted.

With 16 million marriages between partners of different nationalities in the European

Union, of which an estimated 140,000 end in divorce each year, it is necessary to
negotiate and reach an agreement on this issue to guarantee legal certainty for citizens.

After several individual member states vetoed various measures in this field, the
enhanced cooperation process now provides at least 14 countries with the opportunity to
establish necessary standards.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are undoubtedly European states, they are
unquestionably European countries.

These states are members of the Council of Europe and participate in various
international missions in cooperation with European Union countries.

The European Union should recognize the fundamental right of all states to self-
determination and their right to decide their own future.

We cannot accept the principle of regions and spheres of influence as ancient history.

I want to dedicate a few seconds to the question of Georgian territorial integrity.

It is very good that the Union has declared its support in this matter.

The Union is seen not only in the world, but also in these countries, as a guarantor of
security in the region.

We must remember this.

Unfortunately, some parts of the ceasefire agreements of August 12 and September 8,

2008, have not been implemented.

I understand that negotiations are ongoing in Geneva, but perhaps in our bilateral talks
with the Russian Federation, we should again focus on this matter.

The second matter is about visas.

I agree with Mrs. Malmström, who said that this is the way to bring people together and
enable European citizens to travel.

This should certainly apply to Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan as well.

Madam President, we are talking about Turkey here, but Prime Minister Erdoğan will
instead represent Turkey and the Arab Union.

Turkey is a very good friend of Ahmadinejad, the dictator.

Turkey no longer wants to be a secular country.

Turkey occupies Northern Cyprus, and Turkey is no longer a friend of Israel.

Instead, it has chosen Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Turkey is increasingly focusing on the Islamic world.

Ladies and gentlemen, when will we stop this evening?

Europe does not want Turkey, and Europe does not want Islam.

Mr. Sarkozy has already said so.

Mrs. Merkel has already said so, and the majority of European citizens do not want
Turkey as a member of the European Union.

In exchange for money from the European Union and promises of EU membership,
Turkey has been humiliating itself for many years.

However, there is no place for a backward Islamic culture in Europe.

Prime Minister Erdoğan, are you really a man or a coward in slavery?

How long will you continue humiliating the Turkish people?

Take the honorable path and stop doing this.

I would like to sincerely thank President Hans for accepting my request and including this
point in the immediate resolutions of this session.

A woman's dignity is internal to her individuality.

It should be respected by her partners, in relationships, in the family, and by all related
societies.

Young women should be able to make decisions freely and autonomously.

We cannot accept the current situation in Afghanistan.

Discrimination against women is a violation of basic human rights, an insult to women,

and a destruction of their individuality.

Our policy should be conceptual but clear.

On the one hand, we cannot allow President Hamid Karzai to speak in the European
Parliament, and on the other hand, we cannot accept laws in his country that violate basic
human rights.

I voted in favor of this text because I believe it can help more than 23 million European
small and medium-sized enterprises, which play a crucial role in the EU's economic
growth and social cohesion by providing 100 million jobs.

In recent years, banks have frequently required larger guarantees from SMEs needing
capital to expand or recover their business.

It is, therefore, essential to significantly increase financial resources that can assist such
businesses and encourage the implementation of instruments that, for example, allow
risk-sharing between different stakeholders.

Moreover, in the complexity of EU financial regulations, it only involves spending time

and money on red tape.

Now that we have agreed on the guidelines, it is up to member states to adopt ad hoc
measures to restore and support their own SMEs, which represent more than 90% of
businesses within the Union and are a very important part of our economy.

I voted in favor of this report on the proposal regarding the European Parliament and
alternative investment fund managers for the Council’s direction because I believe it is
necessary to register fund managers and ensure they respect some basic principles of
conduct.

In fact, they manage nearly $1 trillion in business, and thus play a crucial role in
financing the European economy.

As stated in the report, this activity is associated with institutions and products that are
very diverse, such as alternative and private equity investment funds, property funds, and
raw material funds.

These characteristics make it a priority to take action at the European level, which shapes
a regulated and specific set of rules directed by all financial service providers.

Rules have been established to ensure greater stability in the financial system and better
protection for investors.

These tools can be used to bring European financial products into a unified single market.

The shortage of organs for transplantation is a horrific market business that primarily
affects developing countries, but it also impacts deprived people in Eastern Europe.

I express concern about the difficulty in combating this brutal trade and the horrific
consequences for those deprived, whether forcibly or not, of their organs, leading to
deteriorating living standards, chronic diseases, and in many cases, death.
Adopting common rules takes the European Union to a level of consistency in the matter
of requirements and responsibilities.

Patients and donors will have the conditions, monitoring, and protections that those
involved in smuggling networks lack, and member states will begin to cooperate
effectively.

I agree that donations should be mandatory, voluntary, and free, and that donors should
only be compensated for any expenses or suffering caused.

I believe my colleague, Mr. Maculik, has proposed some good amendments that improve
the basic text. These should be the result of his medical training and following of this
subject since the last parliamentary session.

Mr. President, as the Dutch football legend Johan Cruyff once said, all benefits come with
their downsides.

The drawback is that it shifts the center of power towards Europe.

Mr. President, this is a disadvantage that should not be underestimated, especially in this
Parliament.

Anyway, over the last 30 years, we have seen an increase in power in Europe with a
contradictory ratio of voter turnout in European Parliament elections.

The transfer of more power to Brussels has coincided with lower voter turnout in
European elections.

If Lisbon enters power, Europe must inevitably learn the following lesson: the Union
must practically work and continuously prove its added value.

Only then can we gain the support of European voters.

The United Nations has declared 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity.

Unfortunately, the European Union will not meet its biodiversity diversity target for 2010.
The loss of biodiversity continues at an alarming rate.

By 2050, the rate of loss is likely to increase tenfold. This loss of biodiversity is
unacceptable, not only from an ethical standpoint, but also from an environmental and
economic perspective, as it prevents future generations from enjoying the benefits of
healthy biodiversity.

It is essential that the Commission and Member States speak with one voice and increase
the pace and effectiveness of their internal decision-making processes to reach a swift
consensus on the European Union's internal position at COP 10, and at the same time,
dedicate more resources and diplomatic efforts towards third countries.

I voted in favor of Mrs. Wheeler's report because I believe it is necessary to establish an

upper limit under which businesses should be paid.
In these times of crisis, this need is even more pressing and urgent.

Small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, together with business owners, play a significant
role in our economies and are key generators of employment and income, as well as
drivers of innovation and growth.

Unfortunately, in recent days, we have seen cases of companies that are owed millions by
government authorities but are unfortunately forced to shut down or declare bankruptcy
due to these late payments.

Therefore, I hope that in the implementation phase, other factors will be considered,
which will ease the relationships of public authorities in stability agreements and
gradually reduce payment terms at the same time.

This will combine both demands, benefiting the entire system of the country.

I hope that this directive will be immediately transmitted by Member States so that it can
be implemented as soon as possible.

It is our responsibility as lawmakers, and the right of the lending companies.

We just voted on the civil aviation protection agreement.

Although air travel is the safest means of transport, no one can take measures that are
more secure.

This is the same with regard to security in this debate.

Since the horrific terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, security measures have been put
in place at many locations.

Just as the issue of safety can never remain more secure.

In fact, when we feel safe again after terrorist events.

Undoubtedly, a balance must be found between civil liberties and rights and security
measures. However, when it comes to a choice, it must be prioritized.

For instance, a considerable agreement has been made to oppose sharing passenger lists
based on data protection.

But certainly, such security measures will not allow for a deep analysis at the borders.

We are living in a new era.

Innocent civilians are deliberately targeted, and citizens of some countries are selected.

In such an environment, certainly, we do not expect these countries to refrain from doing
everything possible to protect the interests of their citizens.
Mr. President, unfortunately, this conflict is over a century old.

It resurfaced in June 2008 and has intensified since the beginning of this month.

Many people have different opinions on why it should escalate at this particular time.

Those who believe that the hawkish Thai general is using it as a pretext to overthrow the
government and cancel the proposed elections later this year.

Whatever it is, this conflict must be resolved.

This is not a major conflict, especially if the United Nations uses its mandate and
influence to bring the first three things, the cluster munitions ban agreement.

If that happens, this conflict can be resolved.

The Commission's proposal is to ensure equal treatment for self-employed men and
women.

Therefore, I see this adoption of the text as an important and extremely positive step
towards aligning with existing European legislation regarding paid workers, since
equality and social protection rights are already secured, and the proposed amendments in
the original text are moving forward.

Generally, this is a step in the right direction, particularly regarding the protection of self-
employed workers' spouses, especially the maternity allowance given to self-employed
women and recognized partners of self-employed people.

That is why I voted as I did.

Mr. President, I know that you expressed your concerns about the Khodorkovsky case in
a private conversation with President Medvedev.

If the Khodorkovsky case was a test for the rule of law in Russia, we naturally must say
that it has failed.

Additionally, Boris Nemtsov was arrested on December 31.

However, Article 31 of the Russian Constitution guarantees the freedom of assembly.

As you know, the opposition organizes a protest meeting on the 31st of the month.

As far as I can see, in 2011, there are seven months with 31 days.

This means that if it continues like this, there is a possibility that events similar to Mr.
Nemtsov's arrest may happen in 2011.

So, what joint actions can European Union institutions take on this matter?

Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, OECD, G8, and possibly the WTO.
This contract includes some points that are positive and important, others that are
ambiguous and unclear, and some that are negative and even disturbing.

We share concerns about the failure to meet the European Union and global targets to
significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss.

We welcome aspects such as sharing the benefits of genetic resources, rejecting patents
on life forms and living processes, protecting traditional knowledge and indigenous
practices, building links between genetic diversity and global food security, assessing the
impacts of biofuels, and addressing the issue of foreign species.

However, we strongly reject and criticize the intention to move towards new forms of
privatization of nature and natural resources, such as the introduction of payments for
ecosystem services, which have been advocated multiple times in the resolution.

Ambiguous and unclear aspects should also be mentioned, such as emphasizing that the
values of biodiversity and the opportunities derived from its conservation and sustainable
use have been integrated into national accounts.

Mr. President, it is good that the European Union is trying to safeguard endangered fish
stocks, but before congratulating ourselves too much on these proposals, we must
remember that many of the EU's past fishing laws have failed.

Under European Union fisheries policies, the UK’s domestic waters were nearly depleted.

The reality is that the protection of fish stocks has been left not to European Union
bureaucrats, but to local fishermen and marine scientists from national governments.

The advice from the men working in the broken remnants of the UK fishing fleet is to
have a simple quota system, with denial and high ranking, and replacing it with weight-
based catch limits, so that all fish caught are sent for human use or for processing into
animal and fish food.

We need to openly change the trade-based quota system and prevent financiers,
supermarkets, and large wealthy individuals from speculating on the livelihood of
fishermen.

Fisheries coming from all types of quota ports should be owned by those who have
traditional ties to these waters and should only be tradable between such fishermen who
are entitled to the fish through personal, family, and community connections.

The closure of airspace after the April eruption of Iceland's volcano confirmed that air
transport is extremely sensitive to varying restrictions on flight conditions.

Not only volcanic ash clouds, but also heavy snow, whirlwinds, thick fog, and other
weather phenomena cause significant difficulties for airline companies in providing
regular flights.
Therefore, responsible airline companies establish various policies with insurance
companies, which are believed to compensate for their financial losses as a result of
unforeseen emergencies.

These airline company insurance costs are, of course, included in the price of the airline
tickets, and passengers also contribute as part of the airline’s cost for essential services
and alternative transportation arrangements in emergencies.

Commissioner, I want to emphasize and repeat that passengers should pay as part of their
air ticket price so that airline companies can handle consequential issues in case of an
emergency and later request appropriate compensation from the insurance company for
losses incurred.

A regular European Union citizen who does not directly use aviation services has no
involvement in this business.

Therefore, transferring such aviation losses to the member states of the European Union is
entirely inappropriate.

It is absolutely right that governments that manage their affairs wisely do not want to
comply with these absurd demands.

If airline companies are to be compensated for restrictions arising from exceptional

weather conditions, it should be their insurance company that fulfills the contractual
obligations within the agreed scope of the insurance policies.

After all, in the European Union, it works the same way for every citizen—if, for
example, their house burns down or snow crushes the roof, they receive compensation
from their insurance company, if they are properly insured.

They will not receive a new house or better accommodation from the airline companies or
European Union governments.

Therefore, why should they contribute to earning the lost profits of airline companies?

This would certainly be absurd.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that in a healthy business environment,
no such support from the government, and thus from European Union citizens, can be
justified for airline companies.

Madam President, first of all, I would like to begin with a bit of order. I note that for such
an important debate, our counterpart, the Council, is absent from the negotiations.

I find that unacceptable.

This is not the first time, and I request the Chair of this Chamber to write a letter to the
Council and file a complaint.
Then, I want to go ahead and, like others, congratulate Mrs. Matthew for doing excellent
work on a very difficult, complex, and sensitive issue.

My group, the ALDE group, will take responsibility for this and we also want to reach an
agreement because we realize how important this is.

However, we do not do this with great pleasure because, as I believe all groups in this
Chamber and the Commission have expressed in different ways, this proposal should not
go as far as it has.

My group will stand firm on additional documents because, if we allow member states to
require additional documents, it undermines the whole purpose of the single permit.
Either you have a single permit or you don’t, but if you have a single permit, there are no
additional documents.

In the negotiations, to reach an agreement, my group will not vote to enter into the
negotiations.

But I must say that I see this shameful red line from member states because, if member
states intend to transfer the directive and be transparent about it, they should introduce
mutual negotiation tables.

Ultimately, in 1999 in Tampere, member states came forward with the great statement
that they wanted a common political asylum and immigration policy.

Well, how far have we come today?

Hardly any progress.

It is quite clear that member states do not want a common immigration policy.

In a world where 43 countries still maintain the death penalty, and where children are
forced to be publicly executed, Europe must put an end to this practice, which is a cruel
and unacceptable violation of the right to life.

I voted for this resolution because I believe the European Union should use diplomatic
tools to play its part in the abolition of the death penalty, and pressure public authorities
to implement a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to its complete abolition.

This resolution requests the Council and the Commission to provide guidelines for
condemning the death penalty in third countries affecting dozens of European citizens,
and to offer information and legal assistance, which I consider just as important.

I also recognize the importance of approving the World Day Against the Death Penalty
and the European Day Against the Death Penalty.

Mr. President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this year’s Beijing +15 faces an
economic, financial, and employment crisis that is negatively impacting the living and
working conditions of millions of women across Europe and the world, but which could
represent an opportunity to review developmental models, labor market organization, and
social policies.

To consolidate the objectives of Beijing +15, the European Union must prioritize policies
for women regarding environmental resources and access to loans, including
microfinance.

Above all, we must focus on supporting development cooperation to build a possible

Euro-African Union with women in the poorest countries, especially in African countries.

It would be good if the European delegation in New York gains support for the campaign
to award the Nobel Peace Prize to African women, symbolically represented by leaders of
associations active in those countries most affected by conflict and poverty.

Considering that the Netherlands has requested assistance for 650 surplus jobs in 45
companies working in the disputed NUTS 2 regions of Gelderland and Overijssel, I voted
in favor of the resolution because I agree with the Commission's proposal and the
amendment Parliament has presented.

I also agree with Parliament’s stance that it is regrettable that the Commission has been
severely negligent in implementing competition and innovation programs, especially
during this economic crisis, which has significantly increased the need for such support.

First of all, I would like to congratulate those involved in this good work.

We all know that in sectors like construction, agriculture, and tourism, between 450,000
and 800,000 illegal immigrants work in the European Union.

I welcome the fact that under this directive, repeated offenders against employers, who
are obliged to provide virtual restrictions for employing large numbers of people with
illegal status, are being held accountable, if the employee is a victim of human trafficking
and the employer is aware of this, or if the employee is a minor.

Member states must also establish a procedure that allows illegal immigrants to file
complaints, for example, of being victims of exploitation.

We must keep in mind that illegal residents have left their homeland in search of a better
future for their families.

Some of the increasing number of children have been left behind, some of whom are
unexamined, while others have been left in the care of grandparents and neighbors, and
even in institutions.

Whenever these children are with their parents, we need to provide them with access to
the educational system and social security within the European Union, even if they are
residing illegally.

Mr. President, I must truly congratulate them on their excellent report.

The fact is that fines, types of fines, and how fines are categorized from one member state
to another.

That is why this report has placed so much emphasis on it, and at the end of the report,
the reporter rightly said that we need specific coordinated actions from the Commission.

In Greece, accidents are many and frequent. Clearly, if we do not manage to legislate at
the European level, if we do not manage to harmonize methods and ultimately ensure that
it is tackled in a more specific and coordinated manner at the European level, then
unfortunately, we will not be able to limit this major issue.

Especially for Greece, this is a highly sensitive issue, which is why we are confident that
this report will serve as an excellent starting point for further action.

Many beggars in Western countries come from Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria, the
majority of whom belong to the Roma minority.

Efforts to improve the poor social situation of the Roma have been ongoing for a long
time, as they live in slums or tent cities outside the societal framework.

As past experience has shown, simply pumping money into Roma settlements will not be
beneficial.

The key to success lies in education, as this is the only way to open long-term
opportunities for a different way of life.

In principle, measures to fight poverty in Eastern Europe are meaningful.

However, the measures taken in the past have failed, and no new, thoughtful approach has
been proposed.

For this reason, I voted against this report.

Indeed, it is a very coherent package.

After the debate this morning on the support package and the tough, strong financial and
economic governance, we are now discussing several key dossiers required for the EU
2020 strategy.

The Parliament wishes to receive input on these proposals from the Commission and, in
particular, the Council. It is unacceptable for the Council to make decisions in June
without clear consensus on several key issues.

We are talking about this direction and the implementation in the near future.

For example, take flagship projects for which our collective cooperation will also be
required.

Therefore, it is truly necessary that we now dedicate enough time to it.

Well then, both the Cartes Listras report and my report for the Committee on Regional
Development related to the policy coordination, increasing production for Europe, or the
theory of outcomes.

The beauty of it is that we can truly work better and better.

If we look at the progress in the world, competition, and things like that we want to
address, to summarize things, it is necessary to make them better, greener, more
sustainable, and more inclusive.

The reports presented by the Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs include
ensuring the entire financial resources, including governance and education.

In short, it is my hope that this afternoon, we will lay a clear foundation for this
resolution.

I don't know whether there will be a vote tomorrow or not, or if there will be an
agreement on governance.

Nevertheless, I expect the Parliament to adopt its final position on the EU 2020 strategy
in June.

Returning to my report, this is an implementation report.

We have taken a proper review of how we have worked on research and development,
regional policy, and issues related to small and medium-sized enterprises, and I would
like to thank my fellow members, including those from the Industry, Research, and
Energy Committee, for helping me achieve a good outcome.

What we have laid out.

In Europe, we have first-class research.

Still, what is behind is the use of that research.

Knowledge is free. It travels around the world and cannot be confined.

Although we are very good at investing in research, we are behind in utilizing this
research, bringing innovation to the market, and consequently maintaining high-quality
production in this part of the world.

My report notes that we are currently spending a quarter of regional funds on research
infrastructure and innovations.

This is a significant shift, a priority that is working due to the actions of the Commission
in the current era.

The earmarking of instruments includes those that have remained useful and have
undoubtedly impacted the agendas in regions, towns, and cities.
This has contributed to the knowledge-based economy we are developing, where we can
gain more expertise.

In my report, together with my fellow members, I have presented many proposals in a

series to improve research to maximize its effectiveness.

We must also recognize the importance of the regional dimension laid out in the Lisbon
Treaty.

To achieve a large-scale impact, we need to focus on several areas. We need the courage
to specialize production in a region, provided good connections exist to transfer that
knowledge.

If the Union invests, cooperation must also take place between them.

I voted in favor.

Nowadays, the Internet has become the foundation of all our personal and institutional
relationships.

Our personal information is now owned by many companies that repeatedly use our
private data without permission.

For all these reasons, it is clear that we need to provide protection for the fundamental
right to privacy on the Internet.

The Internet can also greatly support other fundamental rights such as freedom of
expression, political participation, and association.

On the other hand, however, it has opened up a wide range of criminal activities.

An example of this misuse of the web is the growing scourge of child pornography, which
is now rampant on the internet, and for which we are responsible for preventing.

Therefore, it is essential to take solid measures to protect and promote individuals'

fundamental freedoms while surfing the web.

While constantly focusing on the fundamental right to education and access to basic
information, our actions should be based on privacy and security.

Mr. President, the military flag has ruled the country through oppression and gross and
systematic violations of human rights.

As a representative of the citizens, I call for free and fair parliamentary elections in
Burma in 2010 for a legitimate government.

It is necessary for at least 25% of the current defense in Parliament because members of
the military selected by the Chief of Defense Services, once elected, cannot be far
removed from the concept of a legitimate government.
Secondly, I note that the military junta government signed the United Nations Convention
against Corruption in 2005 but failed to ratify it.

However, ratification should only be considered when the implementation of the first step
is key to tackling corruption.

Corruption brings poverty and forgiveness.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I vote in favor of Mrs. Zborowski's report on
intergenerational solidarity.

I consider that, according to the current concept of work as expressed by the European
Union, not all kinds are adequately covered.

Discrimination against women or men who freely choose to assist those who cannot care
for themselves or raise future generations is now an unspeakable and outdated issue.

Therefore, I agree with the latter, when they confirm the essential need to recognize
unpaid work to stabilize work and for intergenerational solidarity between women and
men.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to congratulate the authors of both reports
and especially Mr. Sevik for his work on the Eastern dimension of the Neighborhood
Policy.

These congratulations were not offered out of courtesy.

They come from my sincere belief that, ultimately, we have information showing that the
European Neighborhood Policy should, to a large extent, be based on values that are most
important to us, such as human rights, media freedom, and respect for democratic
freedoms by governments.

I will repeat what I said here in this chamber on Monday: The lesson from the events in
North Africa and the Middle East is that the people living there, especially the youth, are
not only demanding more bread. They are also demanding more freedom and respect for
their rights as citizens and people.

The same is true in our Middle East and especially in a country that is an immediate
neighbor to the European Union, Belarus.

I want to tell you about the tragic events that occurred this afternoon in Hrodna, Belarus,
where a journalist, Andrei Puksubot, was accused of insulting the president in articles
written for international press in the course of his work as a journalist. Yesterday, during
a meeting of the Belarusian delegation, the KGB arrested him to prevent us from
speaking.

These are reprehensible actions.

The European Neighborhood Policy should help us prevent the situation that occurred this
afternoon with Andrei Puksubot.
Mr. President, I am clearly pleased that Parliament has finally come to its senses, which
was inevitable for many of us, and agreed on a 2.9% increase, though I must say that it is
not enough for many people.

Many of us would have preferred to see a freeze in the European Union budget because
the less the European Union spends, the less it interferes in the lives of ordinary citizens.

This is clearly a good result for David Cameron, Mark Rutte, but also a victory for the
heavily taxed European taxpayers who have to pay all the bills of the European Union
institutions.

During times of austerity, with cutbacks in most member states, it was clearly madness
for this Parliament to attempt a 6% increase in European Union spending.

I am pleased that at least some common sense has been applied.

For those who believe in the European project and European integration, by insisting on
this ridiculous increase in EU spending, you have caused far more harm than good when
every other public institution in Europe is dealing with the pain of cutbacks.

You have greatly harmed your cause.

Madam President, now that we have highlighted aviation security, I want to raise another
troubling area.

Competitors in aviation sports in Austria and other member states face the fact that the
most important set of rules for such sports is only available in English.

Relevant sports people often speak excellent English. However, understanding such a
subject is often not easy, especially when the subject is already complicated within its
specific scope in another language.

As a result, member states then attempt to seek expert opinion from the European Union.

If the rules were available in the relevant language, it would be possible to avoid the cost
of time and effort.

I am trying to ensure that extremely important regulations are also developed in German
and French for those involved in aviation sports.

I had voted against the proposal on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on behalf of
the European People's Party group and the European Conservatives and Reformists
because the text does not adequately protect individual freedoms.

MEPs have regularly expressed their concerns about this international agreement and
before the final approval of the agreement by member states and the European Union, it
was essential to raise multiple issues, particularly related to access to medicines,
responsibility of internet access providers, and searches of personal luggage at borders.
Unfortunately, the joint motion presented by the Socialist and Democrat Group, the
Greens and European Free Alliance, Liberals and Democrats for the Alliance Group, and
the Confederal Group, was not adopted by the European United Left, which I voted for
and which expressed these concerns because it fell short of the required votes.

Mr. President, I want to express my satisfaction at being able to vote in favor of extending
regulations because it includes verification of spare parts for cars, while providing access
to both certified and uncertified parts for car users.

We did this work at the last minute, but we accepted the needs of our citizens.

We are ensuring that good-quality parts are available at reasonable prices.

I had intended to raise a question on Commission-related matters to the President of the

Commission.

However, the Socialist Party intervened today regarding the hearing with the
Commissioners.

I hope the Socialist Party will not begin to play games with the departments assigned to
the nominated Commissioners.

We do not have the ability to change the Commissioner departments, as this falls under
the exclusive competence of the President of the Commission.

Our party, the Liberals, and the Socialist Party’s appointees are all highly respected
individuals, and we should not have this hearing turn into a debate before the hearing
even begins, about whether we can change the Commissioners' portfolios.

I know this was not the topic, but after the Socialist Party's intervention, I felt it necessary
to make this intervention.

I voted in favor of the resolution condemning the recent ethnic violence experienced by
Congo, which resulted in nearly 44,000 homeless and completely destitute individuals.

I am particularly concerned about the issue of sexual violence, which is being used as a
weapon of war.

This is an unacceptable crime that should not go unpunished, and the European Union
should take a stand against it.

We must ensure that those responsible for human rights violations in the Congolese
military are actually brought to justice.

Mr. President, Commissioner, the question is not whether we are against or in favor of
tackling tax fraud.

Of course, we are in favor of it.

The question is, what do we want to employ in order to achieve this goal?
At the moment, the situation between member states is that there are states that do not
exchange information about taxpayers with other member states, even when requested.

The proposal under consideration concerns the introduction of an automatic system,

where all information regarding citizens and businesses abroad will be exchanged
between tax authorities.

In my mind, the most important thing is not to increase bureaucracy, whatever method we
use to exchange information.

Right now, Spain is in crisis within the European Union, with unemployment at nearly
20%, and in Latvia, it’s over 20%, and in many other countries, it’s over 10%.

Unfortunately, this is a high trend.

As a result, member states are being forced to reduce public spending, which is actually
directly opposite to increasing the volume of the bureaucratic machine.

We cannot afford to increase the volume of the bureaucratic machine.

However, introducing this automatic information exchange system will necessarily

increase the size of the bureaucratic machine.

In my opinion, European taxpayers can only afford to maintain this system for so long.

In my mind, there is another proposal that we should discuss, which is, perhaps not going
to extremes, i.e., to exchange all information automatically, but instead, at least ensure
that all member states exchange all information upon request.

In summary, automatically exchange information after a request.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I would like to praise Mr. Florence for his efforts and commitment in
preparing this report, and of course, his ability to listen to and understand diverse and
differing opinions.

As lawmakers, it is most important, during a great economic downturn, that we work on

the results of green energy technology.

We can become global leaders in our diverse renewable energy sectors, developing a
strong, effective, and integrated strategy that focuses on finding solutions rather than
engaging in discussions.

We need to reduce bureaucracy and help SMEs and technology developers.

The market is there.

The regulatory framework is clear.

We have set renewable energy targets.

Although there is a shortage of funds, this is very necessary to maintain the development
of technology and expertise.

Banks and funders will have to take risks on green technology startups.

If we reach this point, there will be long-term benefits.

Jobs and wealth will flow.

If, on the other hand, we do not make every effort during this valuable time, we will lose,
and other countries will be ready to fill this gap.

For example, Ireland could become the equivalent of Finland in mobile phone technology
with marine wave technology.

We have undisputed potential due to the weather and location in the Atlantic.

We have patented technology.

We have expertise in SETO, and we have the legal framework in place.

The market is clear, so this is a great opportunity to create jobs, reduce electricity prices,
ensure energy security, and reduce carbon emissions, not to mention the revenues from
patents.

We now need to move ahead of our companies, which have been working for a decade to
reach this point.

They have taken risks, and we need to support them with increasing funds.

Any delay at this point will be harmful.

Green technology is our future.

We now have the opportunity, so let’s make use of it.

Madam President, Mrs. Malmström, Commissioner, the fact that Mr. Obama and the new
majority in Congress are providing us with a major opportunity to accelerate our
cooperation, especially in terms of the common transatlantic market.

However, this should not be a common market for withdrawal, but a common market that
is based on necessary or sensible and appropriate rules, grounded in the principles of the
social market economy.

Mr. Brooke is absolutely right that, of course, it should lay the legislative foundation,
whether we are discussing regulations for financial markets or environmental and energy
policies.
Adopting a common viewpoint in this sector will play a crucial role in shaping global
relations.

An area that has already been attempted to touch and which we can discuss this morning
is the central issue of climate policy.

Many of us will be in Washington over the next few days where we will have the
opportunity to discuss with our colleagues in Congress.

Although the climate policy legislation has not yet been approved, US government
representatives have the authority to take binding actions, even if the details cannot be
finalized until the US legislative process is complete.

It is important that Copenhagen is a success.

It is not the end of a process, but a crucial step in the process of achieving a common
climate policy.

We must all ensure that Copenhagen is a success.

It will only be successful if we are bound by the environmental policy objectives.

Ultimately, despite our friendship and mutual love and good relations, there are some
things we cannot accept.

These include repeated protective measures, for example, in the defense equipment
market, discriminatory visa policies with some member countries, and visa charges
demanded by the United States as referred to earlier.

It is essential that we speak to the United States from an equal position.

It is necessary to establish partnerships, but also to indicate what we cannot accept, which
in this case is a policy that discriminates against Europeans.

Mr. President, today we are celebrating International Women's Day, and it has been 15
years since the establishment of the United Nations platform for women's rights.

At the midterm review currently taking place in New York, my colleagues and I in the
European Parliament can only say that women around the world must come to terms with
stagnation.

Despite the positive resolutions recently adopted by the Parliament, unfortunately, no

result has been achieved at the UN meeting regarding the Trabala report and Beijing +15
resolution.

What European Union governments have included in negotiations clearly has less
challenging goals regarding women's rights than previous resolutions expressed by the
European Parliament.
At times, it feels like European Union governments are primarily using the Beijing
Platform as a means to lecture non-EU countries on equality.

It is often easier to tell others what they should do, rather than presenting outcomes
themselves.

Before being elected, Commission President Mr. Barroso promised to create a charter for
women's rights.

Today, we have had the opportunity to read the Commission’s document.

My group, the European Union’s Left Confederal Group, is deeply concerned about the
weakness of the content and the way the charter has been developed.

There is a significant risk that the paper will not be worth the paper it is written on.

Parliament, national institutions, and European volunteer organizations were not included,
did not participate in the charter, and clearly, European citizens were not involved in this
process either.

I want to explain to Mr. Barroso that making a declaration about common values is not
enough.

What the women and men of Europe need is a powerful document developed together
with all the relevant parties.

Let us make this the first draft of a women's rights charter.

Use this period to engage in discussions with Parliament, national institutions, and
volunteer organizations before the next International Women's Day in Europe.

When we celebrate the next International Women's Day, it should be clear that we have
made progress.

We are working not only on March 8th, but every day of the year to defend women’s
rights.

This is what the women and men of Europe need.

Mr. President, I voted against this report.

While it is encouraging that illegal immigration and the war on terrorism are prioritized
and that this House is finally calling on the Commission to ensure strict monitoring of
funds in Kosovo and the Balkan states, it is unfortunate that no action has been proposed
in response, nor are any conditions attached.

Coincidentally, my party advocates for a halt to enlargement after Croatia's accession.

Returning to the report, the House has not raised concerns about once again supporting
the closure of certain NGOs and European agencies that are not under democratic control,
often overstepping their powers and demanding European taxpayers pay for nothing.

Mr. President, yesterday we did a good job of finishing the first reading of the dossier on
TENT networks.

However, there is a very important aspect of this democratic charter related to the
restructuring of TENT networks in the next decade.

This restructuring should be completely reconsidered within Europe, simplified and

organized logically to ensure proper cooperation.

Then, considering the current unfavorable economic situation in which we live, we must
also think about the development of this network, or parts of it, not with the budgetary
resources we have.

We need to adopt a new path and work to revive the economy through these networks.

Therefore, it is more important than ever that, beyond the measures taken yesterday, we
try to work in this direction.

Considering the social impacts of the global economic crisis, particularly its effect on
employment, the proper use of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund plays a
crucial role in alleviating the plight of many European citizens and families, and
simultaneously, in meeting the needs of companies and fostering the economy by creating
a new skilled workforce.

It is in this context that this intervention plan for Germany is moving forward, which
involves 181 redundancies spread across four production sites of Heidelberger
Druckmaschinen in Buden, within the printing machinery manufacturing sector.

Therefore, I hope that European institutions will double their efforts to implement
measures to accelerate and improve the use of important resources like the EGF, which
currently has very low activation levels.

This year, only 11% of the available 500 million euros were applied for.

Mr. President, eleven years ago, I was one of the few members who supported the cross-
party Tobin Tax working group, and our meetings were often met with a wry smile.

From the perspective of the millennium, we repeatedly referred to the apparent rationality
of the market, pointing to the risks of competition and possible fractures in globalization.

If today you continue to advance these arguments, it is not a good sign.

We have just avoided a major disaster, and it has not only cost a lot of money, but also a
lot of trust.
If you now think we can slow down such financial transactions taxes a little, then, based
on the speculations I personally have, in other words, the investment fund managers
would tell you a completely different view, as they are accelerating and intensifying their
business along this divide.

This is why I am not sure that the financial transaction tax on the volume of financial
transactions will achieve anything other than being a sample of these huge waves of
speculation.

I would truly like to ask the Commission and national governments to consider the words
of our green colleagues, as well as those of Mr. Billmann and the left-wing views.

This is a political issue. Technical aspects can be solved quickly, as experts are available
for this.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the Council for
appropriate action under Article 13 of the European Community Establishment Treaty to
combat discrimination based on ethnic origin in Lithuania.

In the recent Lithuanian parliamentary elections, three politicians from the Polish
minority were elected.

Lithuanian authorities later attempted to deprive them of their parliamentary seats.

The reason for this is that these individuals hold the Karta Polka.

This is a document confirming that the holder is part of the wider Polish nation.

Its purpose is to help include Polish culture and national identity among Polish
descendants worldwide.

However, Lithuanian authorities believe this implies loyalty to an external country.

This is clearly ridiculous and provocative.

Furthermore, it is discriminatory based on racial reasons, and it also involves a violation

of the rights of national minorities, which is the behavior of an incompetent member state
of the European Union.

I am confident that Lithuanian authorities will consider this matter.

Madam President, the Turkish government has initiated a democratic measure to

democratize the country and improve Kurdish cultural rights.

This was a bold step.

However, banning political parties is a significant move.

A democratic state based on the rule of law must always allow democratic debate, where
all citizens can have their voices heard.
Banning the Democratic Society Party is not conducive to the success of this democratic
measure.

Eighteen months ago, the ruling Justice and Development Party easily escaped this fate.

I expect that Turkey will amend its constitution as soon as possible to prevent political
party bans, in accordance with the standards prepared by the Venice Commission.

Ultimately, all parties must be involved in this, as they could also face the same situation.

Additionally, a party system should also be proposed that results in better representation
of the Turkish population.

This can be achieved by rapidly lowering the 10 percent electoral threshold.

The use of political party bans as a stake in political games should be stopped.

Turkey must work towards this, immediately and without delay, with the support of
Europe.

It is still necessary to thank Commissioner Rehn for his tremendous cooperation.

I wish him every success with his new portfolio.

Mr. President, I will start with some encouraging news.

I am specifically referring to the release of two bloggers, Adnan Haji Zadeh and Ayman
Meli, whom we have discussed in this chamber.

However, this situation is more troubling in Azerbaijan.

We are hearing about the harassment of journalists and intimidation of human rights
defenders facing criminal charges.

Additionally, as a result of recent protests in Baku in March and April, 200 arrests were
made.

All these events have raised serious questions for us, particularly because we must not
forget that Azerbaijan has signed the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Azerbaijani authorities appear to have failed to understand that dialogue between them
and civil society is necessary, and there should be no pressure from the authorities on
society.

However, I hope that ultimately, we can establish cooperation within the Eastern
Partnership and the EuroNest Parliamentary Assembly.

This important report rightly supports deepening relations between Europe and the United
States.
The Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, defense, security, and economic and
trade matters were discussed in detail.

However, it is unacceptable that the implementation of the post-Lisbon treaty is clearly

anticipated when it has become evident that the majority of citizens do not want anything
to do with the European Constitution or its carbon copy.

It is good that the rapporteur focuses on the Palestinian issue, but why was there no
mention of Israel’s right to security?

Because of this bias, I voted against this report.

Mr. President, I would like to offer my praise to my fellow member, Mr. Gähler, who,
despite coming from southern Germany, has demonstrated remarkable knowledge and
love for the Arctic and northern regions.

Some colleagues have said that countries should deal with problems individually and that
there is no need for so much harmony here.

I clearly reject this opinion.

It is especially the European Union that has the greatest experience in working together
and truly going into uncharted territory, which should play a very important role in this
region.

It is either confrontation, uncertain struggles and conflicts, or peaceful cooperation and a

region that can set an example for other countries of the world.

Another dimension is profit, or economic benefits, or environment and protection.

I believe that the European Union, which has always led the way in the fight against
climate change, must place more emphasis on the second dimension while harmonizing
both methods.

Mr. President, Mr. Simpson’s report is an important milestone regarding the European
statistical framework for tourism.

Given its high potential, tourism plays a key role in employment and economic growth.

There is a need to improve the implementation of statistics and the comparative capacity
of the provided statistics.

With the aim of dealing with global competition in the tourism sector, Romania has
developed a professional strategy that sets it apart from other world tourist destinations.

This strategy is based on branding Romania as a country, which is a concept we are using
to present our authentic traditions and the amazing landscapes we have to potential
tourists.
I should emphasize that promoting tourism can also help reduce inequality in the regions
of Southeastern Europe.

Therefore, attention should be paid to diversity.

As a result of the Japanese experience, several countries will reconsider their nuclear
energy strategies.

Germany has already taken solid steps and has shut down its nuclear power plants built
before 1980 for three months.

If several EU member states need to reconsider their nuclear energy strategies due to the
events in Japan, this could have a significant impact on European energy markets, as
power from nuclear plants will need to be replaced by other sources.

I believe that in the current situation, hasty actions could have the same harmful effects as
a potential disaster.

Instead, carefully assessing the impacts of individual scenarios will be the most
beneficial.

Only by doing so can we prevent a rise in electricity prices like the results of the above-
mentioned German measures, and prevent member states, which are normally electricity-
exporting countries, from facing supply security challenges.

Europe must reconsider its nuclear energy strategy, keeping in mind the impacts on the
energy market with a clear head.

It is also unclear which technologies might be suitable for altering nuclear power plant
capabilities.

Another important question is what effects a potential strategic shift will have on gas
markets, gas supply security, and the EU's carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets.

Finally, I welcome the European Commission's swift response and the announcement that
European nuclear power plants will undergo stress tests.

However, the most important question is what further steps Europe will take to guarantee
the safety of nuclear energy production.

In February 2010, following exceptional and extraordinary rainfall in Madeira, Portugal

requested assistance from the solidarity fund, which resulted in landslides and flooding,
causing severe damage to local public and private infrastructure, businesses, and
agriculture.

Portuguese authorities, together with the regional government of Madeira, estimated

direct losses of 1.8 billion euros, equivalent to 0.68% of Portugal's gross national income.

The floods caused significant damage to numerous homes, farms, roads, and water mains.
Financial aid provided through the fund will help Portuguese authorities, particularly the
regional government of Madeira, to recover some of the costs of responding to the
emergency.

I voted in favor of this report overall, based on the sense of responsibility and the
commitment to avoid unnecessary delays in mobilizing financial assistance for Portugal
and France's regions affected by natural disasters.

Mr. President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, fisheries and aquaculture products
form an important part of European food, as we all know, and this means that we need to
import over 60% of these products to meet our needs, as Commissioner Damanaki rightly
stated.

This simple fact clearly highlights the importance of Mr. Kadek's report, with whom, as a
shadow officer, I am happy to work in search of greater consensus on this sector, its job
provision, employment, and the protection of those jobs for all European consumers.

For this reason, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European
Parliament supports the key assumptions and main conclusions of this report, particularly
concerning the need to guarantee the health and safety of imported fisheries products,
aquaculture products, and environmental standards that must be made a necessity for
catching, processing, and preparing these many products.

The report rightly identifies other matters that also deserve support, but due to time
constraints, I cannot elaborate on them here.

For these reasons, my group will clearly vote in favor of this report.

Furthermore, I would like to congratulate Mr. Kadek on the excellent work he has done.

Much has been said today in the debate about gas supply and the connections,
interconnections, and dependencies of European economies.

We must learn from the current crisis.

We must also consider the Yamal 2 project rationally and in our best interest.

This is not only better than the Baltic pipeline to Germany, which also bypasses Poland,
but it will also enhance our energy security.

If built, Yamal 2 will be a more cost-effective and efficient solution compared to the
North Stream pipeline, and additionally, it can be constructed more quickly.

I believe that all EU member states need to direct their efforts toward ensuring energy
security.

I congratulated the project for its excellent work and encouraging outcome.

I voted in favor of this measure because I believe that establishing an ad hoc fund to
reduce dependence on energy and promote the use of renewable and local energy
represents an important sign for my parliamentary group, which should follow an
applicable request from Europeans under the Union’s budget.

In fact, I am confident that this financial instrument is even more important in light of the
financial crisis, as it could help businesses recover more effectively and, in the future,
create a pilot project for more generous energy generation.

I also believe this project is useful in enabling the implementation of projects that can
assist economic recovery and help achieve the energy goals set to address climate
changes.

Prioritizing energy efficiency and advancing the use of renewable energy represents a
necessary step.

Finally, I hope that the program will be sufficiently geographically dispersed and that the
entire legal framework will be described in a more effective manner.

Mr. President, in the context of the financial crisis, public debt has deteriorated rapidly,
and in many countries, they have begun closing off recovery taps.

After dealing with the severe economic crisis, we need to pay close attention to the long-
term and serious imbalances in public finance.

We have a Stability and Growth Pact, but the problem lies in the fact that member states
have not complied with it, and as a result, we now face severe deficits in public finances.

In Greece's case, attention is being paid to incorrect statistical information, but the real
issue is a poorly managed economic policy.

We politicians face very tough decisions between slow growth, an aging population, and
an employment situation that is only improving slowly.

Increasing taxes, promoting economic growth, or cutting expenditures are just a few
remedies for public finance.

In the search for remedies, the key indicators are public finance stability and deficits.

The sustainability of the deficit reflects how much the tax rate needs to be increased or
how much the tax rate should be raised or expenditure reduced for public finances to
remain stable in the long term.

To achieve balance, we must continue to recognize that accumulated debt will grow
through the interest rate and the difference between national growth and GDP, and that
the aging population will lead to significant increases in pension and care costs in the
coming years.

To increase revenue in public finance, achieving growth and employment, enhancing the
productivity of public services, and implementing structural measures are absolutely
necessary, for example, guaranteeing the stability of pension schemes.
In the long term, an increase in birth rates and health care for the elderly will be important
for balancing public finances.

In the middle of the economic crisis, we have called for better coordination of public
finances, and I want to ask how Commissioner Rehn plans to bring this about.

However, I am confident that this economic crisis cannot be used as a backdoor to control
the economies of member states.

We need to observe strict budget discipline in public finances.

Mr. President, I abstained from voting on the reports by Mann and Fejo, which seem to
revise the Stability and Growth Pact.

I am glad the reports are strong on the need to avoid debt and deficits, and they have
certainly been prepared in accordance with an economic philosophy that I support.

However, I have doubts that the adaptation of the Stability and Growth Pact, which has so
badly failed to guarantee both stability and growth, is the right solution to Europe's
economic troubles.

I also have serious concerns about the decision by the Council, linked to these reports, to
reverse qualified majority voting.

We should not disregard the theory that is determining this, and power shifts should move
away from the Council, where this process will take place.

Mr. President, a European response is needed to the sovereign debt crisis that looks at
each specific situation, defends the euro, and defends the member states.

That is why there is ongoing discussion in the European Parliament about proposals on
economic governance.

Parliament is helping to ensure that positive actions are taken regarding the management
of smart debts.

It advocates for a reasonable transition period, arguing that the necessary reduction in
debt should not be made every year but by using a three-year average while advocating
for budget discipline.

It discusses the need for an increase in European policy and greater transparency through
debate in the European Parliament and advocates for necessary solidarity.

This solidarity is what has just happened with Portugal.

As a Portuguese, I should say something to you.

Portugal has a 900-year history.

Portugal is capable.
Portugal has the ability to organize its public accounts with discipline.

Portugal has the ability to improve its banking system, to reform its labor market, to make
its tax system more competitive, and to use modern measures for reform in its health and
justice systems.

Portugal is capable of having a civil service that is more effective and controlled.

Portugal is capable of having a liberal economy that is successful and more competitive.

Fundamentally, however, Portugal has the ability to participate in the European project
and to help solve any challenges that may arise in the future.

For this reason, we are very happy in the Union and want to help it strengthen gradually.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, my respects to President Florence.

In calling him President, I express my respect for the commitment and esteem he has
always shown towards our Parliament.

In adopting the climate and energy package, the European Union has equipped itself with
a legislative framework that properly certifies its significant role.

The new American administration has recently demonstrated an open mindset, which
makes it possible to hope for future joint commitment with the U.S. to halt the effects of
climate change.

However, the full success of this initiative will depend on the inclusion of the economies
of all developing countries such as China and India.

As the Chinese Minister for the Environment made clear during a meeting with the
climate change committee delegation, this will only be possible with the stable support of
rich countries in the form of adequate financial resources for promoting sustainable
development.

Progress has been made in this area with the Poznań Conference and the creation of the
adjustment fund, as well as research and technological development dedicated to
supporting the evolution of green technologies in developing countries, with 50 million
euros allocated for this.

We must ensure that Copenhagen holds a crucial position in the practical commitment of
strong economies, which will help establish a robust fund guaranteeing a continuous flow
of financing for sustainable development in emerging countries.

Only with the inclusion of emerging countries and through internationally agreed
commitments can we succeed in protecting the environment from irreversible damage
while also preserving the competitiveness of European businesses from the effects of
environmental dumping and the economic costs of global markets.
Mr. President, today, the green transport system is far from being achieved, as has been
said.

What is in this text?

What does it say?

Quite simply, it allows member states to voluntarily use a pollution-pay system.

Furthermore, the system is so limited and restricted that, at the end of the day, the cost
will only increase by three to four cents.

How can people think that a three or four percent markup will actually affect the mode
shift?

In other words, this is not a great success from an environmental perspective.

The famous principle of internalizing external costs, after much resistance and despite
notable efforts from the rapporteur, has now become a reality through the Council.

Nevertheless, we will vote in favor of this principle because it is an important principle.

We had previously discussed the precautionary principle, which has now become a part of
European directives.

We will vote in favor of this principle.

It is just a principle. A whole battle remains to be fought, and we will continue our fight
for a real mode shift and for the establishment of a green transport system that can
effectively protect people's health and combat climate change.

Since the main objectives of this amendment are to simplify and make the regulation
easier in a new edition while reducing unnecessary administrative burdens, to ensure the
implementation of the Commission's responsibility for better regulation, and to ensure
compliance with the Montreal Protocol, which was amended in 2007, I voted in favor of
this legislation.

Mr. President, Commissioner, I will begin by thanking you for your excellent work.

As we know, deforestation is one of the planet's most important environmental and social
issues, and every year we lose 13 million hectares of forest, contributing to 20% of global
carbon emissions and posing a significant threat to biodiversity.

The role of deforestation in climate change is undeniable, and, similarly, it is a major

cause of extreme weather events, floods, and also a large cause of desertification in vast
areas of the planet.

The loss of forests threatens all of humanity, but this threat and its effects are not the
same for everyone.
The most affected are the communities with the fewest resources and those who depend
heavily on forests and nature for survival.

Deforestation is linked to our collective existence, the lack of natural resources, their
distribution, the rights of local and indigenous communities, and social justice.

The biggest cause of deforestation is illegal logging, which accounts for 20 to 40% of the
world’s industrial wood production.

Therefore, we are also talking about the transfer of wealth from countries using this link.

This illegal practice endangers the sustainable exploitation of wood and the companies
involved in it.

Good words are not enough.

Parliament should adopt strong and stable measures in this struggle.

This report takes a very important step in this direction by outlining the prohibition of the
timber trade.

Good intentions are not enough.

Effective measures are needed, especially penalties, which could take three forms in this
case.

First, penalties that eliminate any financial gain from illegal practices, which should be
increased for repeat offenders.

That is why those exploiting or trading natural resources must be socially responsible, and
that is why individuals importing timber or timber products into the European Union for
the first time must be investigated to ensure that the wood comes from legal sources.

The public should also have the right to access information for those who obey and those
who do not.