GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The abuse of power at the expense of the people is the order of the day in Africa. When a president is elected with 97% of the votes, the elections are unsound. The so–called struggle at the ballot box, which resulted in President Obiang holding on to power, was a farce. This is exactly what we would expect from a government that for years has failed to comply with international recommendations to introduce a democratic order. The United Nations and European Union missions to observe the elections were not welcome. The secretary–general of the largest opposition party was arrested. The opposition leaders were subjected to unfair trials in the spring. Not surprisingly, all the other candidates apart from the sitting president withdrew from the elections. Equatorial Guinea is the umpteenth poverty–stricken African country in which someone is clinging on to power, enriching himself, violating human rights and completely ignoring the international community. The European Union must engage vigorously in the political dialogue. Any pledge under the ninth European Development Fund is completely out of the question unless the situation improves dramatically. Even if this situation does improve, in the context of democratisation or capacity building, this regime will claim that this gives them legitimacy. This political abuse cannot be tolerated. The opposition leaders and all other political prisoners must be released immediately. The elections must be declared null and void, and new ones therefore need to be organised. There must be an international investigation into the way the oil companies operate and the president’s role in them. Democratisation is a necessary precondition for effectively counteracting poverty. Poverty in African countries is not only caused by globalisation, restricted access to markets or inadequate aid. Many African countries mess things up themselves. Equatorial Guinea is one of those countries in which development is stagnating because of the abuse of power. Those poor people.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I may be mistaken but I understood that the intention was indeed to have a resolution. But first we should refer the work programme to the relevant parliamentary committees to assess it, and should then bring forward a considered resolution with the committees responsible for the various areas adding their views. That is my understanding: there will be a resolution, but not immediately.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I was not aware that idealism was the dominant philosophy in the European Parliament. We cannot build transatlantic relations just by repeating over and over again that that is what we want. In the past, transatlantic relations were determined by the stand-off between the totalitarian regimes of communist countries on the one hand and the West on the other. This was the point made by Mr Patten towards the end of his speech. This situation changed following the fall of Communism. If, therefore, we want to have transatlantic relations, we need to redefine the relationship. We need to ask ourselves whether the United States and Europe are bound to have the same interests nowadays. Prior to the fall of Communism, that had to be the case, but is this still true today? Having formulated the question the answer becomes obvious. The United States and Europe do not now share the same vision or the same interests. This is true both in terms of geo-strategy and in terms of economics. A new transatlantic relationship cannot therefore be built by repeatedly expressing our desire for it. We need to come up with a completely new definition of our relations with the United States. Let us take a very simple example. We now have the euro. If we are honest, the euro divides the European Union from the United States, as the euro is the dollar’s main rival. Therefore, our strategic and economic interests differ. If we want to reinvigorate our economies and re-launch Europe, we need to pose a question that is of fundamental importance for Europe. At a global level, we must ask whether we are bound forever to pay for energy and oil in dollars. Where is it decreed that we must pay in dollars for the oil and gas we buy from Russia, Saudi Arabia or Iran? We must have the will in terms of strategy and economic policy to make the euro a safe currency to ensure we have the funds to bring about economic recovery. The United States is doing just this today. A figure of USD 8 billion per day has been quoted. The US needs investment to pay off its debts. We therefore need to strengthen the role of the euro as a safe currency that rivals the dollar. Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to discuss the subject of transatlantic relations, you must find the courage to put this problem to the United States. The real stakes are these. We will not succeed in building a new transatlantic relationship if we in the European Union do not have our own doctrine on all the strategic problems, on all the military problems, on our vision of the world and on what we want in the world. We need to ensure that we define our interests. Only then can we enter into discussions with the United States.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I rise to make a point about the vote: it would be quite possible to challenge this vote either because of non-observance of the 24-hour deadline, or, possibly, because of the quorum position. I do not want to do this, but I would like to ask Mrs Buitenweg and her friends to call a truce tomorrow and to refrain from their sabotage tactics in this House! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to echo the numerous words of thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Ayuso González. She has negotiated really very energetically and with great skill in this field. I should also like to thank the Commissioner once more for tabling an ambitious proposal. We all regret the fact that the proposal as tabled by the Commission and with the improvements made by Parliament at first reading was not adopted, but we are already making progress. The advantages of extending the use of renewable raw materials to the transport sector have already been mentioned many times. They include cutting emissions, reducing our dependence on oil and above all creating more jobs in farming and rural areas. I regret the fact – and I must say this quite openly here – that no one from the Group of the has taken the floor, because the have after all expressed rather critical views in the debate and I had thought that we might perhaps discuss this again here today. I think it is right that we need to take into account the environmental impact of biofuels, but we must not be one-sided. I might simply remind you of the tanker disasters that we have had in recent years. If these tankers had been carrying biofuels then the damage would, God knows, not have been as devastating, and biofuels do not need to be transported across the oceans either. We want to promote innovation in this sector. That is why Mr Purvis was right to say that efficient and environmentally friendly fuels must be given particular support. I would add that the first step is to start promoting them at all. I fully endorse the criticism of the Council, as expressed by Mrs Rothe among others. I think it is regrettable that we cannot go further, and I will say quite explicitly something that perhaps Mrs Rothe cannot say in so many words: I am also particularly disappointed by the German Government. The Germans were not the only ones who put the brakes on, but they also had every reason to adopt a rather more constructive attitude towards the Commission proposal and our position from the first reading.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the report by Mr Rod and I agree with him that the renewal of the framework agreement governing cooperation between the EU and ACP States is best considered against the backdrop of the challenges posed by globalisation, economic liberalisation and the European Commission's reform of external assistance. Indeed, over 18 months after the signing at Cotonou, we can now begin to assess the agreement by looking at the actual progress made in bringing it to life. First, despite its strengths, in one particular aspect at least the previous Lomé agreement fell short, that is in the fight against poverty. I very much welcome the promotion of poverty eradication as one of the core aims of the new partnership agreement, but we must ensure that this is also reflected in the Commission's programming through its country strategy papers. I regret to say that the strategy papers reviewed so far show the transport sector receiving 35% and macroeconomic support 25% of all programmable resources. In the Committee on Development and Cooperation we have on countless occasions stressed the need to plough resources into basic health and basic education if we are serious about poverty reduction. It is right to stress this point again tonight. The second crucial change from Lomé concerns civil society participation. What sort of results can we expect after hearing reports that civil society has not yet been involved in a genuine and meaningful way? I am disappointed to see that out of a possible 15%, only 2% of resources have been allocated to capacity building in the country strategy papers drawn up so far. Was this because civil society organisations were not consulted or because civil society has such a low absorption rate? The Cotonou agreement stipulates that civil society participation should come from the bottom up, yet without the capacity this is impossible. Finally, in pointing out some of the practical challenges that lie ahead, I would not and do not want to denigrate the huge achievement of the negotiation and signing of the agreement in the first place. The EU-ACP partnership remains a model for North-South cooperation in our world and one which we celebrate properly in our vote for ratification in the European Parliament this week.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, as long as there is a demand for child pornography, it will be produced. As long as there is a trade in pornography, the Internet will be used to carry it out, because the Internet offers an extra benefit, namely it masks the consumer and keeps the supplier, for the most part, in the shadows. However, as long as this demand exists, there will also be abused children scarred for life. I therefore welcome this initiative, which was finally put forward so comprehensively by the Austrian Presidency. Above all, I welcome the proposals for expanding the initiative which the rapporteur, Mr Kirkhope, has made. He has made a major contribution to the instrument, which the Member States can now take up, being more efficient than ever before. I would like to pick up on five points which seem to me to be particularly important in the fight against child pornography. My first point is that not only should the sale and distribution of child pornography be punishable, and indeed should incur punishments that will act as a deterrent, but that the possession of child pornography itself should also be punishable. My second point is the age limit. It cannot be set high enough. I therefore appeal that the target which the Committee has set itself, i.e. of establishing the age of 18 as standard at European level, be implemented as soon as possible. 16 is just the first step. The target must remain 18. My third point is that we need experts in the fight against child pornography on the Internet. And it is even more important that these experts join forces, that they are coordinated, and here again Europol presents itself as the appropriate institution. My fourth point is that the register of persons who have been convicted of the distribution of child pornography or of the sexual abuse of children will hopefully be implemented across Europe as quickly as possible and that access will be available to all Member States and Europol. My fifth point is that we should proceed according to the personality principle in order to punish criminal acts as efficiently as possible. In conclusion, I would like to appeal first of all to the individual responsibility of all those who use child pornography for their own gain. They are responsible for its being produced and for the harm it causes children. I would also like to appeal to the Member States, in the interests of the most vulnerable members of society, to implement as quickly and efficiently as possible the measures proposed by the rapporteur in his excellent report and by the Austrian initiative.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although this proposal for a directive makes some welcome amendments to certain aspects of Community legislation, it represents a reductive and inadequate view of the implementation of the Aarhus Convention, which has already been ratified by all of the European Union’s Member States. Nevertheless, its contribution to the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the Member States is very small, as is the implementation of the Convention in procedures and decisions at Community level. The proposals contained in the Korhola report do, by and large, improve the document, although they do not sufficiently resolve all the shortcomings of the proposal for a Directive, which is why we have also voted in favour of other proposals that extend the report’s proposal, thereby helping to ensure that an opportunity is not wasted in the complex process of implementing the Aarhus Convention. What has also become clear during this debate is that the importance of this Convention’s content and its ratification by all the Member States justify an extension of the debate, a broader and more inclusive discussion and a more appropriate and committed response from the Commission, and not the minimalist vision contained in the proposal it has submitted to the European Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
As regards Amendment No 4, the wording of the final version is different to the proposal adopted in the committee. This wording is more far-reaching. At the end of the original version, the wording was 'with the aim of trying to achieve harmonisation'; in the new version it says 'with the aim of harmonising'. Relating to Amendment No 14

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we in the group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party set great store by the fact that this is not an attempt to set up a single diplomatic corps to replace the Member States’ external services. Rather, it is a question of improving the quality of the external service the Community already has and of improving cooperation between that service and the Member States’ external services. There is no doubt that there is a need for improved training of this kind in the majority of Member States, and especially in the applicant countries which will, of course, soon need a sizeable staff of well-trained people. We in the attach importance to the fact that what is at issue here is in-service training and not basic training. By that, I mean providing training to people who are already in service or on the way to joining the service. And we attach great importance to the fact that the training should be open to participants from the national external services so that there is interaction between EU and national diplomats. We have therefore tabled a number of amendments which we hope Parliament can accept. It is debatable whether there is a need for a new institution with its own building and board of management, as well as a heated dispute about where the institution is to be located. We would certainly prefer to support actual activities than just bricks and mortar, but we are able wholeheartedly to support the intention behind the proposal, and we hope that Mr Galeote Quecedo’s reflections will be given careful consideration in the Member States, the Commission and the Council.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I shall speak in the form of a question, so that the presidency will not object, with good reason, as it always does. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, the truth is that I do not understand the reasons why you do not clarify this point which is still outstanding, because I do not actually understand what that point may be. At the time, in the regulation on designs and models, when it came to the directive, certain points were controversial, for example the reparation clause, but once, with the very direct participation of the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, a compromise was reached on that clause, which has been reflected in the Commission’s proposal and accepted as such by the European Parliament I do not understand what the controversial point can be. Neither do I understand, as has been said, why there may be other controversial points which, at the time, delayed the approval of the Regulation on markings, such as those relating to language, procedure or the location of the office for the harmonisation of the internal market, because that was resolved with the Regulation on markings. And now, as regards this proposed regulation on design, the procedure rules, the procedure languages and the competence of the office for harmonisation of the internal markets are issues which have already been resolved. I therefore do not understand what that point is and, despite your invitation, I would be grateful if you could clarify it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe being a well-ordered, clean and ecologically-minded place, there is particular interest in waste policy, and this evening we turn our attention to the waste produced by mining. Needing as we do the riches of the earth in order to live, we seek them out, process them and use them. They are of differing value, and it is their utility value that is decisive. The question arises of whether all of what we do not at present use or process is to be categorised as waste. I do not believe that it is. In order to get at the material deeper below the surface, good soil, earth and overburden are removed, transported away and later tipped back onto the excavated sites, thus guaranteeing the return of fertile fields and meadows, in other words, that the earth will be as good as it was before. What made discussions in Committee so difficult was the definition of waste, and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, in its report, the Sjöstedt report, has opted very firmly for the definition that is already in the Waste Framework Directive. We are in favour of real waste – polluted material or stones – being properly removed and disposed of. Overburden and topsoil – at least as the terms are used in German – constitute reusable materials that are vitally important elsewhere, in that, without them, opencast mines could not be properly filled in, and recultivation would be impossible without topsoil. All those who engage in extractive work, or who make incisions in nature, are also under an obligation to leave behind them tidy, orderly and, above all, hazard-free land when their work is done, so it is right that the plans should include a contractual provision for renaturation and recultivation with effect from the commencement of work. We lay down sureties for this; these must, however, be both secure and flexible. This is where the Member States are under an obligation to lay down criteria, which must then be approved by the Commission. We are, above all, concerned about the misdeeds of the past, the incorrectly decommissioned mines, the tailings that were piled up; this is what we term historical waste. It is right and proper that we should speak up in favour of making an inventory of the one and removing the other, but this requires more time. There is a need for criteria that are capable of being met and put into practice. In Amendments Nos 71 and 72, the rapporteur does not go far enough. A directive on mining waste does not have to repeat and recapitulate everything that is already regulated in other European Union directives, such as the Landfill Directive, the Water Framework Directive and the Waste Framework Directive. I would again like to point out, by way of conclusion, that all our efforts must have sustainability as their objective. Environmental, economic and social considerations must be weighed in the balance, no less when approving plant than when restructuring it and imposing conditions on waste management plans.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I associate myself with everything Mr de Roo has said, and his outrage at these events is shared by many in the United Kingdom, which is the principal destination for these adulterated products. I would like to press the Commissioner further. Since chicken at the moment can be legally sold when it is 55% water and is adulterated by other proteins which the perpetrators of this scam boast is PCR negative and, therefore, cannot be detected by most tests, is it not the case that there should be a more direct form of action from the Commission? The FSA in Britain has now proposed, through Sir John Krebs, its chairman, that we should set a limit of 15% for the water content of what is labelled and sold as chicken. He has further said that at that level the addition of these proteins – which intended to sustain the holding capacity of a much larger proportion of water – would therefore become unnecessary. It is still the case, however, that many of those who are at the moment exporting these tainted products will continue to attempt to evade legal provisions and checks. I would like to hear from the Commission that it will intervene not merely by recommending better labelling and better testing – though, of course, we need that – but by taking action to outlaw these activities, which are a total fraud on the public and are likely in one respect to cause serious concern, because the injection of beef protein – which the perpetrators admit has come from countries where there is BSE, and they have not tested the products for that – may cause serious public concern as well. This is a matter that has outraged the United Kingdom and many others. We need improved testing, but we need direct intervention here from the Commission, and I am confident that we will get it.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I have all due respect for Mr Barón Crespo’s proposal and solicitude. However, this week, we have a well-prepared debate on terrorism, the root of which can be found in Afghanistan, among other countries, under the guise of Osama bin Laden. I would be surprised if Parliament were now to hold a less well-prepared debate on the issue of Afghanistan, also at the risk of mixing up the two debates. I feel strongly about holding a clear debate on terrorism. As a final point, for the resolution, we for our part have also drafted texts which give due consideration to the humanitarian problems that have now arisen at the Afghan-Pakistani border, and we also comment on the budgetary implications of our aid. I hope that this text will receive broad support. In my opinion, it is much preferable to deal with the Afghanistan issue at a later date, should this appear necessary, when we can prepare for it properly, for we are now dealing with an extremely important and complex problem. I would therefore ask if we could this week confine ourselves to the debate on terrorism, and only briefly touch upon the humanitarian dimension to which Mr Barón Crespo referred. We could then deal with the policy with regard to Afghanistan on a separate occasion, but not this week.

Political group: PPE-DE