GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is with emotion that we receive and share the solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attacks of 11 March expressed by the Council, the Commission and particularly by you, Mr President Pat Cox. Furthermore, we support the proposal to dedicate that day to the memory of the victims of terrorism each year. We believe that the measures on police and judicial coordination and information, as well as the creation of a person responsible for combating terrorism at European level, are positive elements in the fight against terrorism, but we must not fall victim to the controlling and suspicious hysteria which the United States has demonstrated through the Patriot Act, with measures which violate human rights and the foundations of democracy and freedom. In fact, together with creating terror, that is one of the objectives of terrorists: to undermine democracy. In this regard, we do not agree with the proposals for police control which involve biometric and similar data. We believe that the response of Spain and Europe, which is so different from that of the United States following 11 September, is the right one. Instead of turning to aggression, military reaction and reducing freedoms or invading countries, we have placed the emphasis on police investigations in order to bring these criminals to justice. Europe’s international role can and must be aimed at achieving a fairer and more cooperative world, without poverty or inequality, which deprives the attackers of democracy and freedom, who must always be condemned, of any justification. Amongst these measures, with a completely different approach to that of the United States, are those which involve putting an end to the illegal and unjust occupation of Iraq and the recognition of the State of Palestine, in order to put an end to another equally murderous illegal occupation; that of Palestine by Israeli troops. We must hold a world conference against terrorism under the auspices of the UN, where the different measures can be explained: cooperation amongst police forces; structural problems: poverty, debt, inequality; the role of the financial institutions and also of the different commercial bodies; combating tax havens and money-laundering. These measures have also been mentioned by Mrs Doyle. Finally, with regard to the possible and desirable modification and completion of the European Constitution – which has been opened up following the appointment of Mr Zapatero as candidate for the Presidency of the Spanish Government, together with other movements in Europe – we believe it is important to take this opportunity, together with the necessary reform of the decision-making process, to achieve more democracy and solidarity in the European Constitution, with scrutiny by Parliament and by popular sovereignty with changes to the Stability Pact, which will lead to progress throughout Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
It is extraordinary that the European Parliament should be expressing an opinion on Turkey’s progress on the road to accession, especially when it comes to respect for human rights. Because Sweden is not prepared to participate in a common military defence but only in civil crisis management, we cannot support Paragraph 15 which “welcomes Turkey’s determination to contribute to improving European capabilities within the framework of the common European security and defence policy”.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is one of the most important documents we will be debating in the field of the environment in this parliamentary cycle. Given its enhanced legal status, this document will be of greater significance than any of the other environmental action plans I have seen going through Parliament in the last 10 or so years. I am, therefore, concerned at the speed with which it has been considered by Parliament, driven at least in part by an ambitious presidency that will be here today and gone tomorrow. Mrs Myller is in no way to be criticised as she has striven very hard to begin the discussion on the substance of this debate very early on, but that has not stopped some of her colleagues from coming forward with a long last-minute shopping list of demands stretching far into the future. However, we should not despair. The proposals are still there at the centre of the document in the amendments. The Commission can still rescue it at second reading. The rapporteur will have the chance of getting a core of sensible amendments together at second reading that will have the support of the clear majority of Members of this House. I, like many others tomorrow, will vote for this report and the bulk of the amendments, knowing that by going forward to the second reading we are taking steps in the long process of developing an environment policy for the European Union which will outlast all the presidencies and all the ministers that this Parliament will see, and which will probably also outlast most of the Members of this House. In that sense, we all have to recognise how small a part we play in the bigger overall process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, some of my fellow Members have complained that this debate is taking place at night. I think that Mr Lamassoure, who is very knowledgeable on his country’s history, knows that some of the most important events have taken place at night. I would remind him of the night of 4 August 1789, when the French Revolutionary Assembly abolished all mediaeval and feudal rights. I believe that we are in the midst of a revolutionary process and that Mr Lamassoure – perhaps without knowing – is starting a revolution. We have become accustomed to a European Union that has been developing organically, and maybe this is the reason why Mr Inglewood was not very inclined to agree with the new process. Now Mr Lamassoure is presenting us with a real alternative, that of heading towards a federal Europe. The advantage of a federal Europe, highlighted by some of the previous speakers, such as Mr Karas, is that citizens, who at the moment are completely befuddled by all the Community jargon, will be able to understand it much more easily. For example, if there is a clear distinction between the competences which fall to European institutions and those which fall to Member States, we can dispense with this word which, in any case, no-one understands – subsidiarity. All we will need to say is that it does not fall within the competence of the European Union to deal with a particular issue because it falls within the national competence of the Member States. Therefore, I believe that, on this point, I, like other members of the Group of the , have to support the Lamassoure proposal, because it makes particular reference to the Council’s slogan this year, which is ‘more Europe’, a slogan behind my very election as a Socialist MEP, because, in effect, we believe that we need to construct ‘more Europe’ and we believe that the way we can build more Europe is through federal procedures such as those proposed by Mr Lamassoure. I believe there are some problems. For example, I have problems with the special constitutionality appeal, which includes the famous subsidiarity appeal. The Court of Justice already acts as constitutional court, including the famous subsidiarity appeal, and I am slightly concerned about this appeal that appears to be on the horizon. We had it in Spain and we had to remove it because it was a means of blocking the process of Community development. I fully expect that tomorrow this Parliament will support the Lamassoure proposal en masse and I hope that this will serve as a basis for work in the Convention and later in the Intergovernmental Conference.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is now one and a half years since we were able to congratulate the Commission on the Cotonou Agreement, and it is really somewhat disgraceful that there are still only three EU countries that have ratified the agreement. I realise that there are probably some that are on the way to doing so in the course of the spring, but it is still not too satisfactory. At least it is good that our approval is being put in place tomorrow, even if I agree with the rapporteur that it is only the beginning. However, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report. A lot has undeniably happened in the world since the agreement was signed in June 2000, but that does not of course make it any the less important. I think it can be said that the fact that foreign policy is bound up with development policy has, since then, been heavily underlined, and I am also pleased that I am today speaking on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, for this shows the connection between foreign policy and development policy. In a speech in December 2001 in Berlin with the title, ‘From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe’, Commissioner Nielson made these words his own. Which form of policy comes first may be immaterial. However, 11 September made this connection and, in particular, the importance of foreign policy, abundantly clear. 11 September showed what can happen if we do not ensure development in all parts of the world. It is now our task to pursue such development. The same applies to our continuing work in Kosovo. In connection with Zimbabwe too, the link between foreign policy and development policy is clear, as too is the fact that, in spite of everything, the EU has succeeded in obtaining an agreement, which means that we can operate in Zimbabwe in the hope of achieving good results. I agree with the Commissioner, whose speech contained the concluding remarks – which I would certainly echo – to the effect that the C in CFP ‘...stands for common, not convenient and colonial’. I agree that we therefore still have work to do, as we also have here in Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we have always had a point of reference in our political action – the ideal of freedom – and there is a condition linked to this ideal of freedom, namely that the ideal of freedom is totally and unequivocally incompatible with the use of violence. Any form of self-determination which is based on or employs violence in any way, even indirectly, must be rejected in the initiatives and positions we adopt. Secondly, we have an ideal of Europe, which is the ideal of subsidiarity. We have never called into question any decision taken by a national parliament, for we recognise that national parliaments act in local contexts which are nothing to do with Europe. Well then, we would like these two fixed reference points of our action to remain our ideals, for otherwise European politics will become a farce, with positions being adopted for Europe which are not part of our tradition.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I stand here tonight conscious that in Cancún the Commissioner and others will have to battle to protect very poor people. I would like you, Mr President, to count to ten. When you end that count, 80 people in the world will have died of starvation. Every second, eight people die of malnutrition. What is it that these people can do to make all of us better off? The only thing they know they can do is to grow more food. But the one thing we prevent them from doing is to grow food that they can export to us. Because we want to protect our cows and our farmers and our industry, we give more money to a cow each day than 600 million people have to live on. We give two dollars a day to a cow. The poorest people in this world have to live on one dollar. In Cancún we can make a difference. When I came to this Parliament from the British House of Commons, I came with great expectations. I came with the expectations that the European Union meant what it said. I came with the expectation that the Doha Round was a development round. I came with the expectation that the Commissioner sitting there would have a spine to go and fight, that Mr Lamy, who had introduced 'Everything But Arms', would go and fight. Well, I want to see them fight. Because if they do not fight, what are their lives about? What are our lives about? What is all this about when we know that now, for the first time in our history, we can make a direct link between poverty and the propagation of terrorism? We must understand that link and we must start doing something about it. I come from a very privileged background in Sri Lanka, and I know people here come from very privileged backgrounds around the world. We must understand that link and have the spine and the courage to fight to allow people – who can do things such as grow and market their food and create rural agriculture in the developing world – to export produce. We should stop protecting our cows and our farmers in Europe inefficiently, and stop destroying our own customer base. Unless we are able to do that, we are going to have to pick up a huge bill.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a Community of law, because European law is observed and upheld. The European Court of Justice takes care of that. In so doing, it has made a considerable contribution to the success of the whole integration project over the last forty years. The European courts are currently facing major obstacles in their efforts to uphold European law, because they do not have the necessary funding available to them. There are 1600 cases pending before the European Court of Justice, and the backlog in translation work runs to 120 000 pages. As such, the European Court of Justice has become a sticking point for legal certainty. In fact, back at first reading, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market argued strongly in favour of rectifying this deplorable state of affairs and helping to reinstate the citizens’ right to see their European laws upheld, and to avoid the EU falling into disrepute as a Community of law, on account of delays. I am extremely grateful to the Committee on Budgets and the competent rapporteur for endorsing this line of argument and supporting our proposals. In particular, we will again recommend, at second reading, that 60 new posts be created at the European Court of Justice, and, in addition, that the necessary funding be made available in the budget. We also propose that EUR 3 million be set aside, with immediate effect, in order to enlist the services of freelance translators. In implementing these measures, we aim to get legal supervision back into full working order, restore people’s faith in the legal certainty of the EU, and strengthen the European Union as a Community of law.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I speak as a friend of Fiji, as someone who has followed events there for many years. I have friends and acquaintances there and have been there. When I spoke to the politicians the last time I was there three or four years ago the one thing they were all pleased about was the new constitution which had taken four years to put together, and when I saw the events of recent times my heart sank because I knew the consequences for that country. I should like clarification from you, Commissioner. From what you said, I assume you are saying no sanctions, that it is a matter of wait and see and giving them time to sort themselves out before we take any action. I would like clarity on that point. I do not want to walk away from here just assuming that; it would be helpful if you could be more explicit. Mr Ford has called for Fiji to be banned from all sporting events. My sport happens to be a minority sport – rugby league football – and in October or November the World Cup will be taking place in the UK and in France. Fiji will have a squad there as part of the World Cup. The Australian Government wants them banned. The Australian Government thinks that Fiji should not take part in this competition. If you speak to the players, whether they be Asian, Polynesian or Melanesian, they will say they want to play, of course. My specific question to you, Commissioner, is would the Commission advocate sporting bans at this time or not?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hope that you will be able to tell Commissioner Vitorino to what extent the MEPs here are rallying on this issue, that they want to make it a political challenge, because children are not capable of making as much noise as bombs, but that they too need exequatur procedures to be abolished. They need policies to be implemented. If the Commission indeed wants to make the mobility of European citizens one of its priorities in order to harmonise and promote the European labour market, it should face facts: we will also need European family law within the European judicial area. Experts have been working for years on drawing up these texts and are despairing of ever being able to mobilise policies. We need to take this task in both hands, and I think that this oral question can contribute to that. What European law should we draw up? There are the mechanisms of the Hague. There is certainly a particular place for Community law, for law of the members of the European Union. From that point of view, I would like to draw your attention to a few difficulties. The first is that through European law we should not call into question the principle of the authority of the judge of the resident country. This is an inviolable right if we wish to face up to the reality and resolve conflicts in a harmonious manner. There is the possibility of developing networks of trust. This is essential, otherwise automatic return, which is what should be standard law in the European Union, will never come. You mentioned some programmes for developing those trust measures. Use them. We need them in order to promote exchange, so that when a French judge rules on a child custody case, on return after abduction, he will not be tempted by the nationalist reflex. Neither the French judge, nor the English, Irish, German or Finnish judge. There is also the hope that came from the Informal Council meeting in Santiago de Compostela, which was a positive sign. But as it is the details that cause the problem, it is essential that the conditions for the return of children be respected. Whether it is after an abduction or after exercising rights of access or rights to have a child to stay for a limited period, the return should take place according to the law of the country of residence. Finally, I would just like to ask you for clarification on the third part of our question: what do you think of the idea that the Commission could launch a working group in order to have a discussion between Europeans of the tricky notion, which pollutes many of the judgments, that of the interests of the child, which we have included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, let me begin with three personal recollections. I was privileged to address the UN working group in Geneva on indigenous peoples and thus witnessed how it forms a world parliament for some of the most oppressed minorities anywhere in our world. I was privileged also to represent Parliament in East Timor, where I witnessed at first hand Sergio Vieira de Mello’s successful efforts in rebuilding a whole country – a talent so tragically lost to us. This is why I attend meetings of United Nations associations in my East of England constituency, where the role and ideals of the UN are cherished at a very local level. The United Nations inspires me and all of us here in Europe. It is why Europe rightly champions UN policies: the 0.7% target in the Millennium Goals within EU development policy, and Europe providing over half of all support to the UN High Commission for Refugees, which stands up for fundamental rights as a bulwark against the racism and xenophobia now sweeping our continent. This is why we back UN reform that will secure greater efficiency and also inject new vision. Other policies championed by the EU are the UN convention on disability, the move beyond the Global Compact towards a binding treaty on corporate accountability and the idea of an economic security council to oversee the Bretton Woods institutions. Finally, I am concerned that some of the proposals for changes in the veto system, the composition of the Security Council, or suggestions for an EU mandate prejudge the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference and may not carry support in all of our countries. Despite these concerns, where we have differences in Europe, most notably recently over Iraq, these concern how best to uphold the authority of the UN. That authority is once again reaffirmed in Mr Laschet’s report and in our vote here this morning.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I want to congratulate Mr Turco on the excellent report he has presented. He has put his finger on the main problems encountered in implementing Structural Funds credits, and he has clearly indicated what we want to see in this area in the future. In particular, I want to thank him for taking account of the opinion of the Committee on Industry in the final version of his report, especially as regards the issue of job creation. For my part, Mr President, I am going to concentrate on just point: the need to coordinate Structural Fund interventions with other Community policies, an issue the rapporteur is likewise very concerned about. The Committee on Industry believes it is particularly important to avoid conflict between competition policy on the one hand and regional policy on the other. This is not an easy problem, and it is not a new one either. I shall be particularly grateful to Commissioner Barnier if he can tell us whether the Commission has looked at this aspect of the problem in the context of the re-examination of competition policy, and if he could tell us where the Commission has got to in its thinking on this subject.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, you have already said that one in four European citizens, approximately one million a year, will die of cancer, one of the main causes of death in the European Union. Your proposal to the Council on cancer screening was supported and backed by the representatives of all the political groups in the European Parliament. The rapporteur said that younger and younger people are suffering from various new forms of tumours. Information for and health education of citizens on the prevention and timely detection of symptoms which give danger signals, together with reliable screening, have brought about positive results, such as, for example, with breast cancer, which affects a large percentage of women of reproductive age. Even with those new forms of tumours which cannot be completely cured, a greater chance of survival and better quality of life are now assured. I thought it advisable to strengthen the Commission proposal with amendments intended to give citizens equal access to screening, treatment and monitoring services, based always on best practices. Similarly, the need for counselling for those who ultimately contract cancer is proving to be a basic parameter in the final outcome of the disease. Even saying the word 'cancer' is avoided in numerous countries. Citizens react with fear and panic to anything to do with cancer. We can change fear into productive awareness and care. Only thus will we limit deaths and illness while, at the same time, having a positive effect on all the other social repercussions. To close, allow me to congratulate the rapporteur on his essential interventions in the original proposal.

Political group: PSE