GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Our abstention on this report on the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights derives primarily from our view that it might be part of some federalist rationale which we oppose, and which could find clear and definitive expression in providing the European Union with a constitution, as proclaimed in the report, with this Charter as an important component. At the same time, as we agree with many of the rights targeted for inclusion in the Charter which, by the way, are part of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, we decided we could not vote against the report, although we do think the set of rights under consideration could and should unequivocally include the social domain, as would be ensured by approval of the amendments tabled along those lines by the Confederal Group of the .

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, by a diabolical coincidence, it is aeroplanes that illustrate what sort of a world we are living in today. There was the tragedy in New York and there were the events yesterday in another dimension, at another level, in the airports around Switzerland. It may have been Swissair but it could equally easily have been Sabena or Olympic Airways or another airline. You could say that we are dogmatic in the European Union about refusing to see what is going on around us. That is our right. But I think that to be dogmatic to the point where you refuse to see what even Mr Bush's government with its ultra-conservative economic philosophy and Mr O'Nill in the United States can see is taking things too far. To refuse to see the 15 billion given to the airlines, to refuse to see that, for both political and economic reasons, international movements of funds need to be controlled somewhere along the line if we are to have both economic and political stability, to refuse to see that governments need to stop being petty and to take things in hand. In this sense, I think that to abide dogmatically by a Stability Pact decided under different circumstances ten years ago is a big mistake.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Venezuela is an Andean Pact country which has a broad democratic tradition, has demonstrated generosity throughout its recent history and has experienced the advent of many new citizens in search of a better life who have made efforts to contribute to a prosperous Venezuela. This is a Venezuela that, in the past year, has experienced two completely new events in its domestic life that, in institutional, political, economic and social terms, have changed the ways in which the country can be governed. Firstly, there was a mini coup d’état on 11 April to oust President Chavez, who had been elected in 1998 in accordance with the Venezuelan constitution. Secondly, there was a civil strike, initiated at the beginning of December, which constituted a significant breach of the social fabric. Nor ought the issue of oil to be forgotten. Given this scenario of socio-political confrontation and crisis, government and opposition have turned to the international community in search of support in finding a negotiated democratic solution. To that extent, the European Union cannot remain on the margins because, over and above the response of democratic solidarity it needs to offer in the light of this serious problem facing Venezuela, it must take account of the fact that hundreds of thousands, not to say millions, of citizens of EU Member States reside there. That is why I think it right for this Parliament to get involved and actively help Venezuela to emerge from the crisis it is experiencing while, of course, respecting its sovereignty and independence. To that extent, I should be grateful if we were all to support the motion for a resolution. I should also like, however, to see support for the amendment tabled by Mr Ribeiro e Castro, asking for the European emigrants living in Venezuela not to be forgotten.

Political group: ELDR
Mister President, the fact that most Members of my group welcome the creation of a European defence identity has a lot – but not everything – to do with the lessons we have learnt from the Kosovo war and the insight that, unfortunately, in some cases, it is necessary to use armed force if there is a mass violation of human rights. Having said this, I would like to emphasise once more – this has fortunately already been done by many speakers – that, to my mind, the power of the European Union is, or should lie, in crisis management and the prevention of conflict. I am therefore grateful to Mr Patten who has emphatically drawn attention to this very issue. I think that he is right. I think that the power of the European Union – as already referred to by the previous speaker – lies in the fact that, before conflict spreads, every effort should be made to prevent this from happening. Within this context, I would again like to ask Mr Solana about his pledges in the Committee on Foreign Affairs following a feasibility study carried out by the European civil peace corps. He confirmed this at the time and I would like to hear from him again, as this is one of the very situations in which the European Union could be effective in the prevention of conflict. The question remains how autonomous this conduct of the European Union will be in future, how independent from the United States and how closely involved with Russia, for example. Your successor, Mr Robertson, has stated in a number of interviews that the EU’s conduct will largely remain restricted to minor, less significant conflicts. This remark has prompted three questions that I would like to ask here. The first one is: in your opinion, what bearing does this have on the deployment of nuclear weapons? Would you agree with me that the EU’s involvement in smaller conflicts then renders nuclear weapons completely unusable and superfluous? Secondly, you mentioned the reorganisation of funds and the making available of appropriate tools. Would you agree with me that, at present, the reorganisation of funds within the European Union is far more important than consideration being given to raising the ceiling on defence? Thirdly, cooperation with Russia: Could you be more precise about how the European Union should bring this about, independently of NATO? After all, if the majority of potential areas of conflict are either in or bordering Russia, does this not raise the dilemma of us creating something which we will only be able to use in practice with great difficulty, precisely because Russia is involved?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to stress that this is a debate on procedural questions regarding the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Contrary to what one might think, this is not a fundamental debate on the pros and cons of GMOs or its principles, for that matter. Needless to say, how we perceive GMOs will be reflected in the positions we adopt during the discussion about these procedures and the framework around them. In simple terms: in the extensive amendments to this report, which is excellent by the way, the most important aspect seems to be that either we decide to make life easier for the GMO industry or we decide to give it sleepless nights. But the discussion also reveals that the production of genetically modified food has prompted quite a few questions: ethical and moral questions, questions related to public health and the environment, questions as to what opportunities industry and research are given and questions regarding the freedom of choice for consumers. The following points are key issues for the Liberal group and these will also influence our voting behaviour. First and foremost, there is the issue of the freedom of choice for consumers. It is, of course, too crazy for words, really, that if you want GM-free food, you will need to settle for food with a guaranteed maximum GMO content of 1%. This is not dealt with as such in the draft directive but public information, labelling and transparency which crop up in this context are very much part and parcel of this issue. Secondly, we would like to see the public have plenty of opportunity to have its say during the approval procedure of GMOs. Thirdly, we would welcome a streamlined procedure that offers security to both consumers and producers and, as far as we are concerned, better harmonisation throughout the European Union. Fourthly, we would like to see research promoted in Europe in the field of biotechnology so as to offer more clarity regarding what is and is not feasible. One controversial issue is producer liability. We are in favour of the self-regulating effect this has. Ideally, we would like to see this liability included in the long-awaited horizontal regulation of environmental liability. However, some of us are tired of waiting for this horizontal regulation in which the Commission has been engrossed for some 10 years now, and we want to move forward. The present proposal is important to both producers and consumers and is welcomed by the liberal group. We, too, would like to congratulate the diligent rapporteur on this report.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s report seeks to strengthen consumer protection measures but also to extend Parliament’s scope of action, by ensuring that all issues crucial to the prevention of TSEs are included in the regulatory instrument, not just in the annexes which are not covered by the codecision procedure. This twofold concern seems to be particularly justified today, as French experience shows. The fact is that considering the range of measures already undertaken, such as the ban on animal-protein meal for bovine animals, the incidence of mad cow disease in France should have started to decline, but this is not the case, and in fact the number of cases is on the increase. It is this tendency which presents a problem right now, much more than the scale of the epidemic in quantitative terms. The truth is, at the present time, there is quite simply no adequate explanation for it, hence the debate which has been initiated on the possible existence of alternative disease transmission routes of which we are, as yet, unaware. Medical and scientific uncertainty still prevails. In these circumstances, the precautionary principle must be adopted to the full. All possible resources must be used in order to assess the BSE situation in the various countries, particularly including the development and systematic use of fast screening tests. The development of BSE in France raises issues that are not purely medical in the narrowest sense. This is nothing new. From the very beginning, it has not been possible to give any explanation for the emergence of this disease and its transmission to human beings, and its spread internationally, without taking the key socio-economic factors into account: contemporary trends in the agro-industry, the subordination of producers and consumers to the dominating rationale of capitalistic profit. Still today, the way in which the agro-industry is organised, and the fact that it is infiltrated by international mafia-like networks, make the fight to eradicate BSE and TSEs even more difficult. No public health policy should ignore these factors. They are, however, discussed only on rare occasions and in little detail by the European institutions, including Parliament. Basically, BSE is one of those medical matters which, in practical and terribly human terms, bears witness to the acute nature of the choices that society makes, and that is yet another reason why preventing TSEs is a political matter to which Parliament’s responsibility is truly committed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my Group has no problem with the second of those amendments, but we feel that the first weakens the text and therefore we object to it. (Parliament agreed to the inclusion of the oral amendments) (Parliament adopted the resolution) Joint motion for a resolution(3) on the Greek seamen held in Karachi – Before the vote

Political group: ELDR
general rapporteur. – Mr President, I would just like to say that we are now going into category 4 – External Actions – and here we have a special situation because we have created a so-called 'asterisk' amendment. We are above the ceiling of EUR 72 million. This 'asterisk' amendment means that if we make any more increases after this block 5, credits for Afghanistan will be reduced. I just wanted to warn everybody about this. Of course, this is a first reading position, but still I wanted to inform you of the situation. Before the vote on Amendment 674:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the limited time I have, I would like to express my support for the work carried out by all the rapporteurs and my agreement with many of the things which have been said here, in particular by Mr Jonckheer, who criticised the excessive gathering of information and the lack of transparency and socio-economic balance in the granting of aid. I also agree with the criticism that no emphasis has been put on the implementation of Article 82, especially when we are witnessing abusive conduct in a context of market concentration. As a Member for the Basque Country, I would like to express my total support for the implementation measures for fair competition in the market. I say this in case there is any doubt about the criticisms which we have directed at the Commission in general, and Mr Monti, in particular, for its persecution of the incentives to Basque companies and the fact that it considers them to be state aid. Our discrepancy stems from the fact that the Commission continues to misunderstand the character of the general system and the co-responsibility of our arrangement which gives our Basque fiscal rules the same nature, foundation and aim as the rules of the Member States of the Union, and that they are applied in a general way to all tax-payers who, by virtue of points which fall under an external system of law, are subject to those rules.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the imbalance highlighted in the Piétrasanta report regarding the limited participation of decentralised operators and NGOs shows just how difficult it actually is for civil society to take hold of and take over this development instrument. The report also condemns the fundamental political imbalance between structural adjustment measures and free-trade measures and the other dimensions of the partnership (social, cultural and democratic). Such obvious imbalances stack up, distancing us from the objectives of peace, democracy and sustainable development contained in the Barcelona Declaration. The case of Tunisia, signatory to the first association agreement and the first recipient of appropriations, is an edifying one. In an increasingly overt way, the international partners delight in describing countries involved in harsh repression and widespread corruption, where increasing social instability prevails, as stable and successful. We should be wondering whether accelerated economic liberalisation, in the guise of free trade, is not an aggravating factor in this deterioration. Democracy and respect for human rights must not continue to be officially declared theoretical principles which are ignored in practice. Is respect for these principles compatible with the repatriation of illegal residents even though this represents the very success ... (The President cut the speaker off.)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the three key factors which typify the transport of people and goods in terms of competition are price, reliability and speed. It is possible that the railway industry has not been quite up to scratch because, for the time being, it has largely lost the competitive battle to road transport and aviation. This is why it is sensible to find out how the railway industry could function better and how its market share in Europe can grow. I can think of different ways to achieve this. French rail is currently expanding considerably, with growing employment, by doing the exact opposite of what Mr Jarzembowski proposes in his report. Accordingly, the root of the problem is different from how the rapporteur sees it. The real problem is that politicians have for years neglected the railway industry, mainly because they considered it to be a crumbling vestige of the 19th century which would not make it into the 21st century anyway. All new investments were poured into a dense network of motorways and increasingly large airports. Only when the environmental consequences of this policy became apparent did attention shift back to the railways. But at that time, the concept that freedom for the economy was more important than democratic input in politics had already taken hold. Politicians no longer wanted that input in public enterprises and, with it, shirked the responsibility of acting as inspector on behalf of the consumer and as guardian of employment. Public enterprises started to shape up as private companies, increasingly so, where growth, profit and market value were considered more important than the social consequences of their actions. Taking care of public transport and the environment should be of concern to all of us, including therefore our democratically elected government. Whether or not it is judicious to separate infrastructure from the operation of the railway industry is to be decided by the national or regional governments and is not a task of the European Union. And it is certainly not up to the European Union to implement forced privatisation of urban or regional transport companies, as is in danger of happening in the short term. For my Group, these considerations are sufficient to reject Mr Jarzembowski’s proposals out of hand and to express the hope that they could never be translated into policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, everyone in this debate has emphasised the importance of preventive measures. As we know, there is an old saying, prevention is better than cure. With the approximately 15 years’ experience we have had of this epidemic – I myself have been active in connection with both the UN and the Red Cross – I can, however, see that we have not listened especially carefully to that saying. As long as ten years ago, it was extremely clear how serious this epidemic could become in certain developing countries, but too little was done both in those countries and by the international community. It is debatable what the reasons are why this epidemic hit poor countries especially hard, compared with how it affected countries in our own part of the world. It obviously has to do with poverty, with lack of information and education, with patterns of sexual behaviour and, specifically, with young girls’ lack of education of a kind which would better enable them to resist sexual advances. It also has to do, of course, with the shortage of money within the health care sector. I welcome the fact that both Commissioner Nielson and the French Presidency now regard and describe the work on combating the HIV epidemic as a main priority. Money is not enough, however. Instead, we must ensure that the Commission obtains a sufficient number of qualified staff so that it is not isolated employees who are trying to push ahead with these issues. It is also important to have new kinds of cooperation with the pharmaceuticals industry so that we can produce not only vaccines, but also medicines. This applies not only to HIV but also to malaria. We need to be guided by innovative thinking in this area. When, finally, we talk about partnership, it is, as Commissioner Nielson said, extremely important to seek out whatever proves to have worked and to support it. There is a whole host of programmes which are crying out for money and where contributions from the EU could be of use. We talk a very great deal about Africa. I am afraid that, in five to ten years’ time, the situation will be similar and very serious in parts of Asia. I welcome Commissioner Nielson’s conference on 28 September 2000 and hope that it will lead to something of a crash programme for tackling these problems still more vigorously in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
How can we prevent the United States from taking unilateral action in future, or from carrying out preventive attacks, wherever and whenever, even without our approval? Simply invoking the United Nations and international law is not enough as a formula to change Washington from a unilateral to a multilateral player. Only if the European Union organises itself more effectively on a political and military plane can it be a worthy Atlantic partner. However, as long as European leaders set greater store by internal political considerations than they do by common foreign policy, our endeavours in this area will be in vain and we will continue to give America all the political leeway it needs to determine its own agenda. This particularly applies with regard to Iraq. The European Union must sail a liberal course midway between two Social-Democratic extremes: Mr Schröder, the electoral opportunist, and Mr Blair, President Bush’s London branch manager. The pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow unfettered access to all weapons and to destroy all dangerous weapons must be stepped up to the highest level possible. Needless to say, possible military action cannot be ruled out then. After all, if we continue to allow Saddam Hussein to ignore the UN resolutions, he will become a great danger to his environment and the UN Security Council itself. Military action does, of course, require the Security Council’s explicit approval. If the international community joins forces, the Atlantic allies will have to follow suit. Only with Europe’s help can America tackle the problems in the world effectively. Political and cultural differences should not make us blind to Europe’s and America’s common interests. Although the enlarged EU can add more weight globally, decision-making must be adapted and the right to veto must be abolished. It remains crucial, though, for a common foreign policy in Europe to become more important than the political leaders’ own national profile. If that does not change, we only have ourselves to blame for America being able to take global control on its own.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I appreciate the tactics, but would it not be more democratic if you waited until everybody came in, sat down and took part in this vote? It is the last one on our schedule today and it is not a coincidence that it has been taken out of turn.

Political group: PPE-DE