GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to echo Mr Lagendijk’s praise of Mr Van der Stoel. I believe it is extremely important for the outside world to send positive vibes to Macedonia. That does not mean to say that the Macedonian people are not sufficiently alert themselves to be able to deliver something in this area. The former President, Mr Gligorov, was already a shining example of non-ethnic thinking, and the new President, too, has gained the trust of all groups of the population in Macedonia. In my view, it is an extraordinary achievement on the part of the Macedonians to be able to settle the issue within their own borders. It appears to me that cooperation between Slavonic Macedonians and especially Albanian-speaking Macedonians is an extremely important topic which could manifest itself in the fight over the important initiative to establish a university in Tetovo. This initiative has been on the cards for years and still there is no talk of official recognition. Fortunately, this initiative is now being backed by a parliamentary majority, as a result of which a key problem in the inter-ethnic relations has been solved, not only because it is so important to teach in Albanian at the universities, but especially because it considerably enhances the social position of the Albanian-speaking Macedonians. It attracts a new class of students to higher education. It is also significant in terms of the presence of Albanian speakers in the official apparatus, a presence which is currently lagging far behind what should actually be the case. It appears to me that the recognition of degrees from Tetovo university is a major step forward. In time, the university should also be funded by taxpayers’ money only. After all, the Albanian speakers pay taxes and are just as entitled to a share when it comes to paying for education. I, myself, was educated at a university which was a ‘Free University’, free from church and state influence, yet government-funded. I have to say that I still believe this to be a great bonus and it also proves that the state respects the country’s own particular educational sphere. The outside world should do all it can to help the Albanian speakers integrate in their country.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my group asked for a major debate on the situation in the Middle East to be included in this part-session. It also suggested that high-ranking Israeli and Palestinian leaders be invited jointly to the European Parliament. We are therefore delighted by the initiatives taken in this direction and warmly welcome the speakers of the two assemblies who have honoured us with their presence. At a time which everyone senses is decisive, what useful message can we Europeans send out to the peace process today? I tend to agree with what the President-in-Office said on the subject. The first message, to my mind, concerns the issue around which the entire process turns, i.e. the Palestinian State. I think the time is right to clearly reiterate the terms of the unequivocal declaration adopted by the Berlin European Council in March 1999, in which the Fifteen stated that they were ready to recognise a Palestinian State. Did Europe’s recognition of this inalienable right lead the Palestinians to proclaim statehood without further ado? On the contrary. It fostered the sovereign and responsible decision on the part of the Palestinian leadership to postpone the deadline and I am convinced that it is prepared to postpone it by a few more weeks to give negotiation a chance if it feels, between now and 13 September, that we are on the brink of an overall peace agreement. So let the European Union clearly reaffirm the position which it took in Berlin and encourage the Palestinians to make precisely this gesture. In the same spirit, Europe’s second message, in my view, should consist of a reminder of the basic principles from which negotiations can and should develop, i.e. the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, especially those relating to the withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, or the right of refugees to return or receive compensation. This sort of reminder would not in any way close the door to the compromises needed. On the contrary, it would make the sovereign Palestinians responsible for seeking original, mutually acceptable legal formulae, together with the sovereign Israeli negotiators, on the basis of the principles recognised by the entire international community. I think that Europe’s third message should contain a guarantee that the future global agreement will be implemented to the end, unlike – alas – all the partial agreements which have succeeded each other since Oslo. The United States alone cannot provide this guarantee. No one today knows the intentions of the future leaders of the Israelis and the Palestinians. The European Union is therefore a unique guarantor, alongside the United States and Egypt, as the representative of the Arab world, that the commitments made will be honoured faithfully and to the letter. These are the three wishes of my group with the hope that, as a result, Yerushalaim, which means in Hebrew: peace will appear.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have to table a minor oral amendment at this stage, because I have noticed that there has been some misunderstanding as to the true intent of this text. Certain Members of this House suspected me of wanting to weigh down Europe’s bureaucracy, while, in fact, I wish to achieve the opposite. To clarify this, I will read out the text of the second part in English: “and for the same purpose, to foresee the creation of a specific European executive agency (agency with lower case) for cinema and audiovisual matters”. The rest is therefore omitted. I simply mean by this that the efficiency of the existing organisation in Europe is enhanced, and certainly not encumbered. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0347/2001) by Mrs Maat, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the Commission report on the experience acquired by Member States since the implementation of Council Directive 95/29/EC amending Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport [COM(2000) 809 – C5-0189/2001 – 2001/2085(COS)]

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, on this report, which was adopted unanimously in committee. Indeed, we would like to take this opportunity to stress how important the initiatives and displays linked to the European Year of Education Through Sport will be, taking place as they will be in 2004, the year when the European Championship, the Athens Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games will all be held as well. It will also be an important year in terms of the Winter Olympics, which will be held subsequently in 2006 in Turin. A year or so ago, Commissioner Reding announced this event here in Strasbourg, stressing precisely the wider impact of sport, a dimension which is not just linked to its purely economic role but also – and, I would add, in particular – contains social and cultural added value for European society as a whole. However, there are still great disparities in the world of sport and we must therefore focus in particular on the small sports clubs and support their efforts in training young people. You will also remember, Commissioner, the meeting I had with you on football transfers in Europe, on which occasion I suggested creating a European Sports Agency. I feel that this is still a very relevant project, although it must first be included in the Community Treaties on the basis of the declaration on the specific characteristics of sport made by the Fifteen at Nice in December 2000. Indeed, I feel that such a body would aid the dissemination and promotion of healthy sporting activity and a European-level sporting culture while, at the same time, encouraging cooperation between sporting bodies to combat violence, discrimination, racism and even doping. The European Year of Education Through Sport will therefore be an extremely important event and we are ready to give it our full attention.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, I should like to thank the Commission for its communication. Above all, however, I should like to thank the rapporteurs for their sound reports. Parliament has always given high priority to human rights and defended them in all circumstances, and we have not defended them any the less since 11 September 2001. In relation to the candidate countries – which are also of course, in a way, third countries – we have had great success in attaching importance to human rights and democratisation through the Copenhagen Criteria and the whole set of EU regulations. In that connection, we have also focused upon women’s rights and rights in general. That applies not merely to the candidate countries but also to the developing countries. I do not think that the Commission’s communication is completely clear regarding how, in purely practical terms, we are to secure human rights specifically for women. There is of course no doubt at all that, in a long list of the countries we cooperate with, women are oppressed in a range of different areas. They are very often victims of religious or cultural traditions, and I believe we need to take stock of the concept of religious and cultural traditions used to oppress a quite specific group, namely girls and women in general. In this connection, I believe that we must try to involve women themselves more actively, and perhaps we should start by developing a number of programmes with the help of those women who have come to Europe, for we do not always have precise policies for tackling their status in our own countries. If we were to adopt this approach, we could perhaps also obtain some experience of use in connection with the developing countries. I should like especially to refer to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities in which we propose that the Commission do some very practical work on a number of aspects of this area.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to start by taking a critical view of the bitter attack made upon Mr Liese, the rapporteur. If, Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, it is so scandalous that someone should try to get this House to accept a different position, then you evidently have no idea what Parliament is meant to do. Our function must surely be to take up an independent position rather than being a mere extension of the Commission, and so I would like to take this opportunity of expressing warm thanks to Mr Liese. Today’s vote blazes a trail. Mr Liese was right to say that what we are not doing today is deciding whether or not we welcome research on stem cells or embryos. In my own group, too, there are different opinions on that, but we can quite clearly agree on one thing, namely that it is not acceptable that research involving the destruction of human embryos, which is illegal and punishable in many Member States, should be funded out of the EU’s tax revenue. For money to be invested in research projects that are illegal in the Member States in which they are carried out would be without parallel in the European Union. Being, like Mr Liese, from Germany, I can say that this, for Germany, is yet another quite remarkable situation. It is utterly unacceptable, Commissioner, and something that the German public cannot be expect to tolerate – particularly since we are net contributors – that German taxpayers should be coerced into co-financing one out of every five projects in the field of research using supernumerary human embryos, that is, research in the course of which embryos are destroyed, even though this is a criminal offence under German law. I think this is a problem for other countries in a similar way. Let me repeat, Commissioner, that you are sending out completely the wrong message! You are rewarding the production of supernumerary embryos, which one might term a stock incentive. Your proposal reduces human embryos to the level of a biological raw material. There is something on which I ask you to elaborate, Commissioner, something that I find utterly inexplicable, and that is that I have heard that what we are talking about here is nine research projects out of 15 000. Just nine projects, and I ask myself why you are so vehement in their defence. I get the impression, Commissioner, that this is about something quite different, that what matters to you is ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would agree with Mr Cashman that the process of parliamentary decision-making is taking place as we speak. I have also heard from the Commission –which I would sincerely like to thank incidentally, for being so very accommodating, because that much I can say – that it is unable as yet to give a definitive answer on certain aspects. That is a very important point, of course, and I am sure it will have certain repercussions. But precisely because the Commission – I see the Commissioner is nodding – is unable to give a definitive answer as yet, it is in fact a little risky to get everything down in black and white at this early stage, because then we will lose control of the situation. So what I would actually like to ask now, is whether Parliament can pursue its own decision-making process, in a sense independently of the Commission’s position, and then we can explore how the rapporteurs can engage in further consultations with the Commission in order to reach a definitive viewpoint. That seems to me to be a better order in which to do things.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would firstly like to thank Mr Nielson, because for the first time we have had a reasonable reply acknowledging that a series of measures were in fact adopted in the field of cultural cooperation, the first time I have received such a reply following three other questions, to which the reply was that such measures did not exist. I would therefore like to thank you for making things absolutely clear. I still believe that these measures restricting cultural relations are pernicious, but now we can return to the tone with which we have spoken over all these years. He has acknowledged that these measures exist. I believe they are absurd. I would just like to make one small point: when he says that it would have been more correct to say that Heads of Government had been insulted, it is not that it would have been more correct, but that it was absolutely incorrect to say that Heads of State had been insulted. And it is the Commission’s responsibility not to confuse a Head of State with a Head of Government. It is true that two Heads of Government were insulted. One of them has now been relieved of that position by the sovereign population of my country and he will therefore no longer be Head of Government when any insult is directed at him. Thank you, Mr Nielson, for the excellent cooperation we have enjoyed over the last five years, including on the issue of relations with Cuba.

Political group: PSE
We voted against this report, which repeats the affirmation of the European Commission – even if the rapporteur distances himself from it – according to which ‘labour costs are generally considered as the main potential source of inflation’ in the eurozone. The report states that establishing a European labour cost index would resolve a ‘major weakness’ of the economic and monetary Union. Who are they trying to fool? If there is a major weakness then it has to be the salaries of the overwhelming majority of European workers. In the European Union, which is one of the richest regions on earth, the real standard of living of the working class has been declining for many years, beginning with that of tens of millions of workers that employers condemn to insecure employment, not to mention those who have been made unemployed! For decades, all the policies of left- or right-wing governments and those of the European authorities have moved in this direction in order to increase the wealth of the ruling classes. Do you want statistics? In that case, publish the index of profits made by the European ruling classes thanks to the exploitation of their workers! For the workers of Europe, it would be the exorbitant cost index of maintaining a capitalist system that is socially unjust, harmful to individuals and economically devastating!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am extremely surprised because the Conference of Presidents has – unanimously – asked the Council and the Commission to specifically include in this morning’s statement the issue of war crimes allegations in Afghanistan, which have recently been acknowledged by the UN. I am extremely surprised that nothing has been said on this issue, and I would like to ask you, Mr President, to ask Mr Haarder to expand on his statement so that it includes the subject that the Conference of Presidents specifically requested.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Although it is clear to me that there is a need to reform the common fisheries policy as quickly as possible, and although I recognise that the stocks covered by this proposal for a regulation have been weakened, I nevertheless consider that this reform, as envisaged here, is unbalanced and could make us forget that the protection of fish resources, while necessary, should in no way be at the expense of fishermen. It seems to me that this report does not devote enough attention to the men and women who, aware that the very survival of their livelihood depends above all on the management and preservation of fish stocks, have already undertaken to make enormous efforts in that direction. This report seems to me to be a kind of Trojan horse in terms of the future common fisheries policy as presented now by the Commissioner responsible, Mr Fischler. I shall therefore be voting against this motion for a resolution, which I regard as a motion that ignores human beings and proposes measures with traumatic and brutal consequences for the fisheries chain.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are all bound to regret the breakdown of the peace process that President Pastrana pushed forwards with so much political courage at the beginning of his mandate. I must confess, Mr President, that having taken part, together with other Members of this House, in a meeting in Los Pozos with ‘Tirofijo’ and the leadership of FARC, this decision comes as no surprise to me. On that occasion we begged for the release of the European Union citizens kidnapped by FARC and also, at the request of his wife and daughter, of a Colombian senator who was ill. Needless to say, we achieved nothing. Today, Mr President, this Parliament must raise its voice once again to condemn all the murders, including the recent murder of senator Marta Catalina Daniels, all the violations of human rights in Colombia and to demand that FARC releases all the people it has kidnapped, including the Presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt. Our Parliament has always demonstrated its commitment to the way of peace and of dialogue to solve the conflict, but in the knowledge that dialogue must be sought by both parties and that a society cannot remain forever deaf, dumb and blind to violence. Last Sunday, Colombian society demonstrated civil courage and democratic maturity. This is why, Mr President, today more than ever and on the eve of the forthcoming Presidential elections, the international community and this Parliament and the European Union in general must continue to show solidarity and their support for Colombia’s legitimate government, for the entire spectrum of democratic forces and of civil society, with the demand, as always, that in order to overcome the serious problems affecting the country we must insist on the way of peace, harmony, reconciliation, justice and dialogue, and insist that the problems cannot be overcome by violence, because Colombian society is crying out for peace. To conclude, Mr President, I feel that this Parliament should stand side by side with Colombia in this crucial exercise of the Presidential elections.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there are three countries outside EMU. In these countries, referenda will be held before the governments concerned make the decision concerning the introduction of the euro. Two of these countries, England and Denmark, have had the good sense not to take part in the euro information campaign. They have said no in view of the fact that the discussion is not yet concluded and with the forthcoming referenda in mind. The third country that remains outside EMU, Sweden, has, however, decided to take part in the campaign, despite the fact that it will take place before the referendum and before it is decided whether Sweden will introduce the euro. This means that the euro information campaign will not be a normal information campaign as it is in other countries, but a sort of persuasion campaign and the beginning of the fight between those that are for and those that are against in the referendum. It is, of course, difficult to imagine that the euro information campaign would produce any particularly critical information on the euro, as the object of the campaign is to increase confidence in the euro and the euro reform. This means, in actual fact, that the euro information campaign will serve the political purpose of the Swedish government, which is, of course, to persuade the Swedish people to vote in favour of the euro in the referendum. Fifty percent of the euro information campaign is financed from EU funds and is to be conducted throughout society, even in schools where it is not usual to carry on one-sided political campaigns, which is what this is. I think that it would be disgraceful if the Swedish government were allowed to exploit the euro information campaign in this way. It would be both compromising and embarrassing for the EU if the campaign were allowed to be carried out as planned. Therefore, I want to appeal to the Commission to take steps to ensure that the agreement concerning the Swedish euro information campaign is torn up or amended in such a way that it may only be implemented once the Swedish people have expressed their opinion in a referendum. I also want to appeal to my fellow MEPs here in the House to support Amendments 7 and 12 in the vote tomorrow, as the text of these amendments recommends that the campaign not be conducted in countries that have not decided if they are to be a part of EMU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I wish to inform you and the Members who come into daily contact, although sometimes without noticing them, with the Parliament staff who ensure the running of the House as a whole, that certain sections (security guards, receptionists, firemen) were on strike yesterday afternoon. They were protesting at having to work 12 hours at a stretch, day and night, for an average net salary of FRF 6 000, without even receiving extra pay for night or weekend work. I want to express my solidarity with them. Moreover, we have written you a letter, Madam President, on behalf of the LO and LCR Members, and hope you will follow the matter up.

Political group: GUE-NGL