GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the political situation in Venezuela warrants the greatest possible interest and attention from the European Union. My group condemns the instigators of the coup of 11 April who irresponsibly attempted to overthrow the country’s democratic, legitimate constitutional institutions. Most of all, we condemn the Council of the European Union’s complicity with the instigators of the coup at the time. We have not yet forgotten that the Presidency of the Union immediately sent a message of support to the instigators of the coup, a black day for European diplomacy. It is important to respect the Venezuelan Constitution, which was drawn up by a democratically elected assembly and equally democratically ratified by a huge majority by the Venezuelan citizens. Indeed, the anti-governmental action against the government instigated by the part of the opposition known as the Democratic Coordinator lies completely outside the framework of the Venezuelan Constitution and, moreover, only served the economic and commercial interests of forces outside Venezuela which had no hesitation in reducing the entire country to poverty in order to continue to enjoy privileges and pursue specific goals. This does not, of course, mean that we blindly support all the actions of the legitimate Venezuelan Government. We support the moderating action of the Mesa de negociaciones y acuerdos working in Venezuela and we support the mediating work of the Carter Foundation, based on respect for the will of the Venezuelan people, which has several times been expressed democratically. It is important to remember that President Chavez has, on a number of occasions, declared that he is willing to respect the provisions of the Venezuelan Constitution and to submit to public consultation half way through his mandate. Respecting the political experiment in Venezuela means respecting the dignity of a people that has decided to take its fate into its own hands. We too have a responsibility to further this process and to ensure that the complexity of the situation in Latin America, not least, does not become such as to constantly jeopardise the autonomy of its people. That is another reason why our group calls for the motion for a resolution we have drawn up together to be adopted without amendments. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the resolution proposed by Mrs Lalumière seeks parliamentary backing in the form of proposals for the necessary means and structures so that the European Union can assume international policing duties alongside ΝΑΤΟ, especially when and where ΝΑΤΟ fails to act immediately, as specified at Helsinki. Unfortunately, this philosophy, as can be seen from the debate, prevails not only in the Council and the Commission, but also in the European Parliament which, instead of expressing the feelings and interests of the citizens, is about to ratify an extremely dangerous policy for Europe and mankind as a whole. Not only are we ignoring the blatant crimes committed and being committed in Yugoslavia, we are also being called upon to support the need to repeat them with more efficient means and procedures. The following questions must inevitably be asked: who gives us the right, on any pretext, to bomb, kill and trample the fundamental principles of international law underfoot? How should we describe someone who stirs up tension and conflict between peoples inside countries and then uses that tension and conflict to control and plunder the countries in question? But, even if international alliances are still prepared to commit such crimes today, the people will soon form their own peaceful front against these criminal policies. I do not congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Lalumiere; I am disgusted by her proposal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, neither at the international or global level – as shown by the Iraq crisis – nor at the European level, can we avoid dealing with Russia, and this is only right. We need Russia as a partner, and I believe deeper cooperation with it to be both desirable and worth striving after, for the Russians should understand the enlargement of the European Union not as a hostile act, but as an opportunity. As has been frequently said, borders shift and change, and one of the consequences of enlargement is that we will be sharing borders with Russia. The resolution, under the Danish Presidency, of the problem with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad – the former Königsberg – is very much to be welcomed. Now there is also to be a new summit on 31 May, an EU-Russia summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There has since 1999 been a common strategy, whose cornerstones are meant to be democracy, the rule of law, further integration into a European economic and social area and general enhancement of security and stability in Europe, along with reforms in the energy sector and the shared struggle against organised crime. Russia does not aspire to membership of the European Union, which would go against its conception of itself as a major power. The European Union should seek genuine cooperation with Russia, which would, not least, involve the European Investment Bank being allowed more opportunities for activity in Russia, an idea put forward by, among others, Mr Schüssel, the Austrian Chancellor, who propounded it in a letter to President Prodi of the Commission. If Russia were to ratify the agreement with the European Investment Bank, which agreement is oriented towards the Northern dimension, the Russians would at once have billions of euros at their disposal, which would make it possible for a fair amount of nuclear waste to be disposed of. As far as Chechnya is concerned, it is clear that we must demand that human rights be respected, just as much as we must condemn terrorism, which again claimed civilian victims only a few days ago. Diplomacy, however, is what is called for here, in order to break the spiral of violence and responses to violence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, until recently I believed that Uganda was one of the better African states in terms of human rights. A fortnight ago Amnesty International, as part of Refugee Week, arranged for MEPs to be partnered with refugees for a day. The reason for doing this was simply to allow politicians to understand at first hand the experiences of people who become refugees and to listen to why they had to escape from their home countries. I had the privilege to meet a Ugandan refugee living in Scotland whose name is Innocent Jakisa. He has been given refugee status to stay permanently in the United Kingdom. His story was shocking. I do not have the time to go into detail here. He was not from the north of the country but was a disabled rights activist who spoke out against his government. That is why Paragraph 5 of the resolution, calling on the Ugandan Government to introduce good governance and political pluralism, is absolutely vital. Freedom of speech is essential for democracy. Uganda has come a long way from the brutal dictatorship of Idi Amin, but there is still much to do. The fact that there are no political parties in Uganda should be a cause for concern to us in the EU and although the president is supposed to lift this 17-year ban on multi-party democracy, subject to referendum, this process needs to be closely monitored by the EU. As for the substance at hand in the resolution, the treatment of children in the northern part of Uganda is of serious concern. Only a few weeks ago, a number of schoolgirls were abducted by the brutal rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army. If they are not found their fate will be one of sex slaves to militia commanders. According to Jo Becker of Human Rights Watch: 'The increase in abductions is dramatic and alarming.' More children have been taken in the last ten months than in any previous year of the conflict. Since the military offensive by the Ugandan Government, in just over a year, it is estimated that 5 000 children have been abducted. In the year before it was less than 100. In the 17 years of conflict between the Ugandan Government and the LRA, it is estimated that 20 000 children have been abducted. Much needs to be done. I hope that in future the children of Uganda will be able to live peacefully and that people like Innocent will have their human rights respected.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am sorry to say that given the outcome of the summit, we are unable to endorse the positive assessment of it. We very much regret this. We had indeed hoped the major problems would be dealt with appropriately and appropriate solutions found. I should first like to list briefly some areas where success seems to have been achieved. Ratification of the agreement with Chile is one of these. Confirmation that things are going well as far as the agreement with Mexico is concerned is another. I should also mention the Commission’s excellent work on the ALBAN proposal for postgraduates previously mentioned, and of course the standard declaration on the benefits of the association strategy. There is also, however, a long list of omissions and missed opportunities. I should like to remind you of Mr Salafranca’s own report supported by the whole House. It provided an opportunity to adopt the broadest of approaches to the strategic association between Latin America and Europe, and to take determined action. Unfortunately, this did not come about. There is a whole raft of very worrying issues, for instance the fact that all the critical points in Latin America seem to fall within what could loosely be described as the dark shadow cast by the United States in the aftermath of 11 September. Certain aspects of the FTAA (Free Trade Area of America) process are also giving cause for concern. With regard to Argentina, it should be pointed out that taken together, the European Union countries constitute a majority in the International Monetary Fund. It was within their power to generate quite a different response to the crisis in Argentina. Over and above all this there is the very worrying situation in Guatemala and in other Central American countries. Freedoms are under attack again. Once again too, leaders and human rights defenders are being done away with. The European Union has failed to rise to the challenge presented by Venezuela, and it has also missed the opportunity of improving relations with Cuba. Finally, I should like to emphasise that the situation in Colombia calls for peace and negotiation, not for lists. In a sense, the latter are the exact opposite to what is needed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The European Parliament has adopted an own-initiative resolution on relations between the EU and the UN, containing key aspects that I believe to be extremely dangerous. This applies in particular when it views the EU as a political-military bloc, on the basis of the false assumption that the so-called ‘European Constitution’ has already been approved and ratified. The report even goes as far as to expand on the supranational nature of the constitution in important aspects – in some places, as a matter of fact, appearing to be totally blind to the reality of the situation. One example of this is the position adopted by the major powers at the Brussels Summit. This proposal represents a clear attack on each country’s sovereignty in its international relations. The resolution even takes the view that ‘whenever an EU statement is presented on behalf of the European Union or the European Community, EU Member States should refrain from making their national statements, which should only be envisaged on an exceptional basis and justified in advance to the EU Presidency’. Although this resolution deals with serious issues facing humankind, it does not address them seriously and although it focuses on aspects of power, it advocates creating political and military blocs in a framework of an enhanced multilateral system, strengthening the role of the Security Council and attaching less priority to the role of the UN General Assembly.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The vote in this Parliament on the Trans-European Networks (TENs) for transport has fortunately brought back the strict obligation to respect the Community directives on the following: strategic environmental impact assessments, consultation of residents, preservation of conservation sites and of protected human settlements. This is an obligation that the initial proposals from the committee and the Commission ignored. The bridge over the Strait of Messina, an addition to the North-South rail route – only proposed at the request of the Italian Government, though never subject to environmental impact assessments, as the former Commissioner Mr Van Miert admitted to the Members of this Parliament – has been crossed off the list of projects of European interest. Indeed, this was an unsustainable project, which had already squandered EUR 80 million on producing incomplete studies on the impact of more than 60 km of road and rail links on a highly urbanised area. The landscapes of the Costa Viola and the Messina region would end up devastated, and the tourist resources and the urban settlements would be destroyed. Fortunately, after the proposal by the Confederal Group of the , the Group of the and the Group of the , this project, which came about only as the result of the Italian Prime Minster’s megalomania and lack of respect for the environment, will not uselessly drain Community funds. A battle remains to be fought to ensure that the project is also crossed off the list of Italian works provided for by the Law on Objectives, and that instead employment and development are revitalised in Southern Italy. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I shall not speak about the subject but on the institutional issues. This House has already rejected the option of – or, at least, it has refrained from – lodging an appeal with the European Patent Office. That is only right and proper. The European Parliament is a legislative body, and as a legislative body, it cannot intervene in current proceedings. That is simply not possible! This is one of the fundamental principles of a democracy under the rule of law. The legislator passes a law – in this case, the Directive – which will be confirmed next week by the European Court of Justice. Then it will be down to the authorities to apply the Directive and award a patent or not, and the courts will have to decide whether this award or refusal of a patent is lawful. That is the due process, and no other process exists in a democracy under the rule of law. That is why the legislator – in this case, the European Parliament – cannot intervene in current proceedings. The European Parliament has about as much responsibility for this issue as the Commission, or the Green Party congress or a general meeting of Greenpeace. It is not for the Commission, or this House, or the , or Greenpeace to decide how a Directive should be applied; that is the task of the relevant authorities. They – and the courts – decide on this issue, nobody else! And that is how it should be. Other than that, Ms Breyer, almost everything you said was factually incorrect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there can be no doubt about the need for us to combat the growing menace of international crime and, most importantly, of terrorism. There can also be no doubt that close cooperation is required, both at Community and at transatlantic level. What concerns me, however, is that we might be undermining the healthy balance between security and justice by promoting a comprehensive system of vigilance over every single passenger, every single citizen, thereby violating the principle of proportionality, which, in any democratic society, must always be complied with. Commissioner Bolkestein asks us what message we wish to send out to our partners. What we must send out is a clear message that we wish to cooperate on our common objectives whilst complying with our laws. Indeed, we received a most welcome contribution from the Article 29 Group, containing the nineteen essential items of information that strike me as sufficient to protect passenger security. We would also like assurances as regards the retention of this information, a right of appeal and the manner in which it is to be used. Commissioner, what kind of message did we send to the citizens, in March 2003, when Parliament deemed the transfer of passenger name records (PNR) unacceptable, in case guarantees were not provided for adequate levels of protection and of compliance with the Community rules in force? Or in October 2003, when we saw that the Commission’s own conclusions indicated that the protection offered was considered inadequate? Commissioner, you have heard speeches on the dilemma that you have posed Parliament in a vote on this proposal for a resolution. Let me ask you a different question, in order to get to the crux of the debate: what has changed since March or October 2003 to justify Parliament’s change of attitude?

Political group: PPE-DE
The proposal in the report to give the Committee of the Regions the right to bring before the EC Court of Justice cases in which the principle of subsidiarity may have been breached and to appear before the Court in order to defend its rights is unfair. The Member States are not homogenous. They range from federal states to centralised unitary states. It is therefore difficult to design political forms of cooperation within the EU when it comes to the role of the Committee of the Regions and to that of the regional and local authorities. The Committee of the Regions lacks democratic legitimacy, and we believe it should be phased out, not developed. With the democratic deficit in today’s EU, it is more important first and foremost to develop the role of the national parliaments. It is in actual fact states, and not regions, that are members of the EU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, allow me to adopt a rather Swedish and personal tone. Swedish snuff is most certainly not good for you and is not to be confused with any sort of ‘health food’. It is a very addictive drug, and I most certainly would not want the tobacco industry, by which I here mean Swedish snuff manufacturers, to be given the opportunity to market snuff in the rest of Europe as something healthy. That would be devastating. In spite of these misgivings of mine, I cannot quite understand our allowing all other forms of tobacco product – cigarettes, cigars and pipes – which are in themselves more dangerous for the individual who uses them. These tobacco products are most certainly and without any doubt harmful to health. The fact that snuff is less dangerous to people who use it is, in actual fact, less important. What gives snuff an advantage is the fact that nicotine addicts can use it without affecting the environment. Passive smoking is probably the most insidious effect of tobacco. We can experience this on a daily basis, both in this Assembly and in this House too. There is smoking going on everywhere, something which sometimes causes acute difficulty in breathing for those who are allergic to smoke, among fellow Members of Parliament too. One ought not perhaps to refer to one’s own experience in this Assembly, but I myself took up smoking when I was very young. At that time, it was not only cool to smoke, but it was even useful. Rather tubby young ladies, in particular, were extremely well served by cigarettes. Fifteen years ago, my husband contracted a serious lung disease. Then, if not before, I painfully learned the cost in terms of suffering of the smoke produced by myself and all smokers. I now regard myself as a nicotine addict. But I am not bothering anyone else.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in the Spanish version of the resolution on the Afghan refugees off the coast of Australia there is an error, and I am pointing it out so that Parliament’s services may correct it. In Recital E there is a line missing, since it says ‘allow asylum seekers to request asylum once’ and it should then say ‘they have arrived in Australian territory’. This text simply needs to be modified in accordance with the other versions – I have seen the English, the French and the German. I point this out so that Parliament’s services may correct it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am in favour, intellectually, of the process of streamlining and simplifying, so well argued by Jean-Louis Bourlanges. I am in favour because he takes account of the long theoretical work that this Parliament has been developing since Maastricht, because this is a parliamentary acquis that must be included in the text of the Convention and lastly, because this work has resulted in clear instruments and effective decision-making procedures, which are crucial to the smooth functioning of the future Union. Unfortunately, Mr Bourlanges, in the text’s philosophical and theoretical subconscious – for example, in paragraph 5, second indent – we can discern a terrible distrust of the small and medium-sized States which makes me unwilling at the present time to adopt the report, for various and quite straightforward reasons. It is the differences between the large States on the major issues that have impeded the Union’s progress. It is not through any lack of will on the part of the small States that the United Kingdom has not signed up to the euro or to the Schengen area! And nor can the small States be held responsible for the absence of a Social Europe, the small size of the budget, the lack of reform of the CAP, the crisis in structural policy or the limitations of the judicial instruments of the area of freedom, security and justice. We cannot, then, where the size of States is concerned, recall the perennial response of the unforgettable chief of police in Casablanca, which was to ‘round up the usual suspects’! It is not square kilometres, longitudes, latitudes and per capita GDP that determine how important countries are to the common interest, the European interest! For this very reason, these criteria cannot be used to impose finalised constitutional solutions, leaving anyone who does not agree standing in the hallway, in other words, one step away from the door leading out. Perhaps Mr Bourlanges, with his intelligence, knowledge and unswervingly pro-European attitude, should have explored this point further and fought harder to find a reasonable and consensual solution. I hope he will do this, at least by tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
I would like to thank Commissioner Lamy for his reply. I can understand that it may be good negotiating tactics not to be too precipitous in assessing the number of jobs, the amount of export income and the export volume we are losing. Will the Commissioner consider at a later stage, when it becomes necessary, producing some form of statistical background? Many ordinary citizens wonder about the future consequences. I am thinking in part about people in a number of places in my own country, Sweden, e.g. Borlänge in Dalarna, which has a large steelworks. Do you believe that this will be a long-term conflict with the US, or are you hopeful that the countermeasures currently planned by the European Union will lead to the Americans coming to their senses?

Political group: PPE-DE