GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, for anyone who has worked with legal issues in their professional life, the subject of this debate is very challenging. The Treaty’s ideological ambition, namely that of establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, is, of course, all but divine. ‘And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.’ The EU’s ideologues have, for a good many years, tried to imitate the divine creator. ‘Let there be law’, the programme goes. The results reveal, however, a regrettable difference between divine and technocratic power. The work done by the EU technocrats over a period of years, aimed at realising the ideology of freedom, security and justice, has proved to bear a striking resemblance to the Tower of Babel. The observable and demonstrable results fall into two categories: firstly, the undermining of efficient national legal systems and, secondly, the establishment of an opaque supranational legal system with attendant supranational bodies that are beyond supervision. Together, these two categories of results involve huge reductions in legal certainty and, if this development continues, the criterion of success we shall be able, in a few years’ time, to use in characterising the EU project will be the blackly humorous one found in the saying, ‘The operation was a success, but the patient died.’ In order to promote justice, monitoring systems have been established that leave the parties involved beyond all supervision. That is something of which anyone who has tried to work with the Schengen information systems, Europol registers etc is aware. The degree of legal certainty is accurately reflected in the scope of police power and the opportunities to exercise democratic control over such power. These opportunities are being reduced day by day. Fortress Europe involves neither freedom, nor security nor justice. The EU’s ideologues overlook two basic facts in the sociology of law: firstly, that viable and democratic legal systems require something other, and more, than ideological phrases, legislative agreements and technological implementation; and, secondly, that the objectives pursued should be realised through the least far-reaching means. The Commission’s comprehensive monitoring report, published in November 2003, offers an ironic warning, observing as it does that the level of corruption is still high, indeed very high, and that this may have repercussions for people’s confidence in public administration and the judicial system. You bet! What, then, is the cure? It is that the Commission should exercise special vigilance. With the Eurostat affair fresh in the memory, that is no doubt like setting the fox to keep the geese.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to bring up another point. Not only yesterday, but also a few months ago, every month really, permits are granted to the presidency or other nationalities to organise receptions. These then degenerate into all-out bingeing sessions, at which point the cameras start to roll. I think, Mr President, that that is unworthy of Parliament. What I would like to ask through you is that these kinds of festivity be regulated properly. I think that we can no longer afford this kind of behaviour. I am surprised that permission is granted for this kind of thing, because my request to set up an exhibition for the handicapped, organised by myself, was turned down last week by the same College of Quaestors. My request was looked upon critically, whereas these kinds of party, where we are portrayed as vultures, are simply tolerated. I would ask you to raise this matter with the College of Quaestors in order to put a stop to this, as this is beneath us all.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, like aviation, the present issue is reminiscent of air traffic control. It is high time that the Member States forsook their national stances in favour of a European stance because it is national stances that have prevented the rail system from being vital and from retaining its passengers and freight. Instead, we are now faced with the opposite. Mr Savary’s excellent report is the first in a whole series of reports which will deal with the rail system and its liberalisation, which is essential, in my view. Trains should not be confined to internal borders within a large European market. I think that is important. Liberalisation and competition should be introduced within this large European market. That, in my view, is the best solution for customers and services. If the best solution had been cooperation between national companies, then they would have done this a long time ago and we would not be faced with this long-standing problem, namely that rail transport is on the wane. For a country like mine, and several other Members have spoken about their own countries, it is, of course, essential that we have one European market with technical unity or ‘interoperability’, to use a buzz word. Indeed, a small country is vulnerable in that respect, but a country which lies at major intersections is even more vulnerable to this. I think that we need to take sound steps and take them fast. A difficult issue was that of personnel. Mr Savary, I welcome the compromise that we were able to reach in that respect. It is, of course, important for health and safety to be regulated and not compromised over, and this is also true, of course, of training. We should be very clear about this too, so as to ensure that these issues are brought into line. I am left with one question, namely I wonder whether we are sufficiently ambitious, as indeed, we are only referring to trans-European rail systems. In my opinion, however, if we harmonise trans-European rail systems, we should also do the same for national rail systems. This is especially important for those people who manufacture trains and train equipment. We need, as a matter of urgency, to create a European single market in that respect too, and this will only be possible if we harmonise trans-European, i.e. international, as well as national traffic. As such, we need to ensure as soon as we can that we create rail systems modelled on the HST, such as Thalys and Eurostar, which do not stop at borders but which carry on. This should also be possible for ordinary trains because if not, Mr President, we are heading for a traffic nightmare. Indeed, if we do not breathe new life into the railway sector, we will always have that traffic nightmare hanging over us and it is absolutely essential that we resolve this matter.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, my point concerns the liberalisation of postal services, which you too referred to, Madam President-in-Office. The postal services are one example of just how inefficient Council meetings are. It was decided in Lisbon to speed up the liberalisation of postal services. We adopted our position in the European Parliament before the end of the year, in the hope that the Council would adopt its common position by the end of the year. What happened? Not a thing! The Council did not adopt a common position. We should in fact admit to ourselves that the Council does not want to adopt a common position. Germany has decided to extend the post office monopoly because everything has ground to a halt in Europe. Madam President-in-Office, we call on you to ensure at the Stockholm Summit that the Heads of State and Government instruct their ministers to proceed with the liberalisation of postal services without delay. Only this will prove that Council meetings make any sense or any headway. And then you should pass a second resolution, Madam President-in-Office, stating that the Heads of State and Government must evaluate structural policy, post haste. We must be in a position to reform structural policy in 2003 at the latest, for two reasons. Firstly, because structural policy is extremely important to labour market policy in numerous countries and, secondly, because we have to tell candidate countries what to expect in the new period if they accede after 2005/2006. In this respect, Madam President-in-Office, please make sure that the summit passes specific resolutions on the liberalisation of postal services and the evaluation of the structural funds so that we can make headway for the period after 2006. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your attention. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The amended version of the original text has incorporated Parliament’s position, and the delegation of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy can go along with this text. There is a greater information duty for the benefit of workers, and openness must be offered with a view to future employment. Furthermore, the Commission has pledged to instruct a committee of experts, by March 2002 to report on a number of alleged ambiguities and apparent imbalances which could lead to distortion of the internal market principles. If the investigation confirms the said suspicions, the Commission will take measures accordingly. Opponents want to reject this directive and would prefer to wait for a fresh proposal in the short term. However, we have witnessed how national interests can substantially frustrate and delay a fresh proposal. The time for navel-gazing is over and we cannot overlook the globalisation of our economies. European companies must be able to compete with the rest of the world. That also applies to our investors. We realise that this directive will not win any prizes, but rejection brings us back to square one, and that is not in the interests of Europe. In the final analysis, to stand still is to regress, and fear is a bad advisor. We have therefore voted in favour.

Political group: ELDR
I voted to approve the Accession Treaties only under protest and out of solidarity with my future colleagues. Despite the Commission's warnings and reproaches during the course of the negotiations, the Council has insisted on committing what is without doubt a breach of the law. The Council's controversial retention of Annex XV in the Accession Treaty and consequent wholly unilateral alteration of the 2004-2006 financial framework amounts to a breach of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the European Parliament and the Council. By doing this, it has trodden Parliament's budgetary rights underfoot. At the same time, it has forced upon Parliament the choice between fighting for its rights and approving the enlargement treaties. Such behaviour by the Council puts an end to our loyal cooperation with it. - Poos recommendation (A5-0091/2003)

Political group: PSE
The asymmetrical capitalist development which characterises the economies of the ΕU can be seen in the changes which have taken place over the last decade, during which asymmetries between the Member States, between the rich and less developed regions and even within Member States of the ΕU has worsened. Instead of convergence and cohesion, divergence is worsening, widening the gap between the rich and poor. Even the report admits that the ΕU 'still exhibits major regional asymmetries in economic and social development [and] regional asymmetries have actually increased within some Member States'. The golden triangle formed by Yorkshire, Franche-Comté and Hamburg accounts for almost half (47%) the income but only one-seventh of the surface area and one-third of the population of the ΕU, while 18% of the population of the EU is living below the poverty line. As a result of ‘labour mobility’ strategies, which strengthen migration towards and the concentration of wealth in the rich central regions of the Union, flexible forms of employment and unbridled privatisation within this triangle, all policies, both national and Community, come second to the law of maximum profit. Instead of creating jobs, we have mass redundancies and spiralling unemployment. Even the report tells us that the ten poorest regions have an unemployment rate of 23%. In the countries which are the main beneficiaries of Structural Funds, that is, Italy, Spain and Greece, there was a clear increase in unemployment between 1988 and 1998, especially in Greece, where the official unemployment rate of 6.7% in 1988 compares with 11.7% in 1998, an increase of about 75%. These structural interventions are not designed to bring about real development in each region which takes account of its unique features; on the contrary, they come second to even bigger profits for big business. Not only are funds for structural interventions both insufficient and limited, 30-40% of total funding received by the poorest Member States finds its way back to the richest Member States in the form of payment for know-how or capital equipment. And this funding has been paid for by scrapping traditional productive sectors, changing crops, destroying agricultural produce and deserting areas. The ones who suffer as a result are the poorest sections of society, while the ones who benefit are the monopoly behemoths and the various rodents which surround them, in that Community funds are the 'pieces of silver' paid for integration into the ΕU; in a way they are a form of compensation to big business for doing away with much of the protectionism which it enjoys under a national market system.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we have already talked a great deal about genetic modification here in Parliament. Some of us believe that biotechnology has a glorious future ahead, whilst others are sceptical and point to the dangers, the risks and the scientific uncertainty. Parliament has three tasks when it comes to the issues surrounding GMOs, the first being to create a vision. A vision that points the way and is broadly based. That is precisely what Parliament has had such a struggle with. The parliamentary majority swings back and forth between the position of NGOs and that of the business community. Given the polarisation of opinion, sound admission procedures are a must, i.e. procedures that guarantee safety, afford the consumer and the environment protection and uphold the precautionary principle. The review of Directive 90/220 strikes a good balance, the best in the world in fact. I think that we, together with the rapporteur, can be proud of the negotiated outcome. Our second task is to take decisions and to foster decision making. We must put an end to all the legal uncertainty within the industry. A tricky situation has arisen within the industry in recent years. There is a de facto moratorium but no decision has ever been taken to this effect. We must make a breakthrough here, but this will only be possible if there are sufficient safeguards for consumers and if we can offer them legal certainty. Consumers must have a choice and the Commission must provide guarantees to this effect. Parliament’s third task is to take responsibility. If we want to give the go-ahead, then we must also be prepared to take the responsibility that goes with it. Why not give ourselves some encouragement by pointing out that the old situation was worse and that it will be possible for there to be a moratorium in the new situation. But as I see it, we must also have the courage to say that with this directive, we have incorporated sufficient safeguards to give biotechnology a chance in Europe. Each product must be examined in order to ascertain whether it satisfies requirements, but our responsibility goes further than that. Parliament must continue to press for a form of monitoring of the social implications of biotechnology. The assessment must not be restricted to matters of safety alone. The usefulness to society of biotechnological inventions must form part of the assessment carried out by governments and the business community, so that we can go a step beyond the safety aspect. This will benefit consumers all over the world, as well as industry.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wanted to indicate that personally I am in favour of this amendment, but on the important condition that it be considered as an addition rather than as a deletion, in which case we would say that Parliament, 'wishes to see a simple and precise distribution of competences', where 'and precise' is the amendment and the rest is the original text.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted against the Jackson report on the environmental inspections conciliation. I voted against it just now as I voted against it during the conciliation, in which I was pleased to participate as a substitute member. Once again, I ask why on earth we cannot have a directive controlling environmental inspections. All that means is that our Member States do not want to be controlled in implementing Community environmental standards. Remember, the war in Iraq began because President Saddam Hussein did not want controls on his own territory. I would not want Europe to suffer the same fate. Recommendation for second reading Oomen-Ruijten (A5-0068/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. This has great relevance to the matter we are discussing since it touches on the freedom of the press and the independent ownership of the media in Russia. A few hours ago the owner of most of Russia's independent television, Mr Vladimir Gusinsky, was arrested in Spain. I am told he is due to be deported to Russia. I should like to protest at this most serious development and ask that investigations be made. Mr Gusinsky is presently in an aircraft on his way to Madrid where he faces deportation to Russia for criticising the Russian Government in his media activities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if 43 children are found on board a ship, which is taking them away from home to work in plantations in another country, our hearts bleed, with good reason. We thought that slavery had been stamped out, but it continues to exist, and the most shocking form of slavery is, of course, the trafficking in children and the trade in child slaves. Children are being shipped off to work on plantations. Children are being abducted to be trained as soldiers, to carry weapons, to become a killing machine or to provide sexual services. Children are orphaned at an early age if their parents die of AIDS, and are then hired as house slaves of those who supposedly take care of them. In short, children are often slaves. Nevertheless, Africa is not traditionally considered a continent where it is customary to sell children. Abject poverty is at the root of child slavery, and child labour contravenes the Treaty on the Rights of the Child. Echoing what is stipulated in the resolution, I would therefore call on the Commissioner to focus on, and put an end to, the networks which set up the trafficking in children, to launch reintegration programmes for rescued or escaped children, but also for former child soldiers and street children, and above all, I would urge you to help ensure that the products of Africa are sold at a fair price, so that the parents can work, and can let their children go to school, as that is what is supposed to happen.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Europe is a collection of peoples – as we heard during the presentation of the Convention two days ago. In Europe there is a group of languages which forms a significant part of its heritage. We see this in this Chamber: 11 working languages and nine new languages which will be incorporated on the enlargement of the European Union. In Europe there are unitary states, nation states and also multinational states – states made up of several nations with their own languages. In my case, in the Spanish state, there are several nations. I belong to the Catalan nation, the language spoken by more than 7 million people – in other words, more speakers than two of the current official languages of the European Union, and more speakers than six of the languages of the 10 candidate states. The Commissioner herself, Mrs Reding, was rapporteur for a report on the linguistic diversity in Europe in 1990. At that time the European Commission was asked to take account of the particular circumstances of the Catalan language within the European Union. In this regard, we can say that the steps recommended by Parliament – by means of the Reding report – at that time have not been taken: that official texts in Catalan should have validity and that the Commission should also regulate a form of incorporation of Catalan into the linguistic system of the European Union, since it is a language spoken more widely than many of the languages which are working languages and official languages here. We are not asking, under any circumstances, that Catalan should be a working language – the European Union's linguistic system is quite complex enough – we are simply asking for recognition of its validity as an official language and that it may participate in the wealth of this cultural mosaic. In this way we will be able to satisfy that plurality which Robert Schuman – as the President mentioned at the beginning of the sitting – spoke of during his lifetime.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner. However, I would still like to ask when this code will finally come into force, bearing in mind that it has been on the agenda since 1997.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, listening to speeches by many Members, it is clear that the reaction is almost unanimous and that we all believe that the Council letter, in which the Council suggests to the Court of Justice that a decision on the case of the wall in Palestinian territory be considered inappropriate, is particularly serious and inopportune. Well, in any parliamentary democracy, faced with such a vast and firm opinion of Parliament, a government resigns. Although the concept of resigning is not provided for in the European institutions, I would ask the Council to take into consideration the opinion given in this House, which is not denouncing the wall because it causes a hazard and slows down the peace process, but is denouncing the wall as such. This wall, Mr President – as you well know and as many Members have stressed – is primarily a dividing wall because it does not follow the 1967 green line but it enters into Palestinian territory, dividing the Palestinian community, pupils from schools, children from parents, farmers from fields, ill people from doctors. This is a wall that takes territory away from the Palestinian community: it goes up to 25km within the West Bank; the first section, of 150km, has already been constructed and has shut out 50 000 Palestinians from their territory. When it is completed, that figure will be 130 000. These figures, Mr President, were not made up by this Parliament but they were provided for us by the Israeli civil society and by Israeli non-governmental organisations, which remind us that 670 000 Palestinians risk being seriously affected by the construction of this wall and that 14% of Palestinian territory will be taken away from the Palestinian Authority. Faced with this reality, we believe that it is the wall itself that provokes anger, desperation and hatred. It is our duty to recognise this, Mr President, and we should not be surprised if this anger, desperation and hatred – God forbid – turns into violence. The day when we find ourselves counting the victims and the figures of such violence, we should also remember how much we contributed to the desperation, hatred and anger of these people. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: PSE