GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The decision by President of the United States to reject even the cautious commitments of the Kyoto Protocol on emissions of six greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is clearly totally irresponsible from the point of view of the environment and the interests of humanity. However, the verbal clashes on this subject between the United States and the other industrial powers are hypocritical. The behaviour of America’s leaders is only the reflection of the behaviour of an entire social class which monopolises the means of production of the entire planet, in the United States, in Europe and elsewhere. Mr Bush is just doing the dirty work for large US corporations in the oil and coal industry. He is applying the philosophy of an economic order based on the quest for profit. Were European governments, however, which, by the way, claim to be defenders of the environment, able to prevent the Erika disaster? Were they able to prevent many continental rivers being turned into sewers? Were they able to prevent Seveso? Are they even able to force industrial companies to respect the working environment and the health of their own workers? Just like the Government of the United States, their main concern is to create the political conditions which will enable large companies to maximise their profits and not to curb them, even in the interest of society at large. For our part, while condemning the Government of the United States, we condemn the governments of all industrial powers and, beyond that, the current economic order, in which profit is everything and human beings count for nothing.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as chairman of Parliament’s Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico, I wish to congratulate the participants on concluding the final stage of one of the most ambitious projects the European Union has ever undertaken. I should also like to take advantage of the presence of the Mexican Ambassador to the European Union, the diplomat, Jaime Zabludovsky, to congratulate him on his active contribution to this agreement. This agreement establishes the bases for closer relations between the European Union and Mexico. In this respect, I should like to emphasise that, on this occasion, we have managed not only to obtain institutional declarations, but we have created a legal framework that will bring together these two peoples who share many common values, if both parties are able to take full advantage of the potential of this agreement. To this extent, I wish to emphasise that, in addition to the mechanisms that have been established in the fields of political cooperation and trade, an instrument has also been created to boost and further cooperation in more than thirty different areas. Almost three years have passed since Parliament delivered a favourable opinion on the interim agreement between the European Union and Mexico. One year later, Parliament also expressed its support for the overall agreement, which was then ratified by the Fifteen Member States of the Union. Throughout this period, we have witnessed the great changes that have taken place in Mexican society and which have culminated in what can be called a genuine celebration of democracy: last July’s elections. On this subject, I should like to take this opportunity to pay public tribute to President Ernesto Zedillo for his commitment to democratic reform. I should also like to convey to the new leaders of the Mexican administration my sincerest hope that they will continue in the current direction and repay the trust that the Mexican people has invested in them. To conclude, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we need to call for two things: firstly, we must ask the Commission, in the person of Commissioner Nielson, through the intermediary of the European Union delegation in Mexico, to undertake an assessment on the ground of the agreement’s potential for trade and cooperation and to ensure that his results are distributed to the various parties concerned. Secondly, we must once again ask the parties concerned in the Chiapas conflict to maximise their efforts in dialogue based on respect for democratic principles, so that an end can be brought to an anachronistic situation that has no place in modern society. Mr President, I should also like to express our solidarity with the people of El Salvador, who have, once again, fallen victim to a natural disaster.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur most warmly for this report, for which we all have been waiting for so long. A more European approach, an increase in democracy – for which we thank God – and a greater willingness to inform and communicate are dependent on the European political parties playing their part. It is for this reason important that we should, once and for all, implement the European Statute on Political Parties, for we have been talking about it and haggling over it for so long. I see today as an important day for democracy, and an important day for Europe. I say that as one who represents the political group that has, for longer than anyone else, had a European party at the European level and was also the first to actually implement in practice the separation between the work of the political groups and that of the political parties. The criticisms that I hear uttered are not new, but I still do not understand them. National parties can indeed stand in the elections to the European Parliament; they are funded in accordance with national legislation on the funding of political parties, and it would be wrong if national parties, parties limited to one nation, were also to form a party under the European Statute on Political Parties. The funding of European parties has not, to date, been transparent, it has not been capable of being scrutinised by the Court of Auditors, nor has it been on the basis of their relative strengths. I do not want parties to get double helpings of everything; what I want is for the funding of parties to be laid down in a transparent and democratic way. A European party must be active in more than one state, or else it is no more than a national party. The European Statute on Political Parties helps to make political debate more European, and we must work towards internal policies becoming more European rather than European politics being conducted more along national lines. As current electoral law makes the candidates national rather than European, the next step must be a single electoral law for the whole of Europe. The European Statute on Political Parties is a significant step in that direction.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too must thank Mr Sacconi for a really good report which, in my opinion, states very precisely the prior conditions and requirements that must be present if an environmental agreement is to become a serviceable legal instrument. I should like to say to Mrs Oomen-Ruijten that I think that voluntary agreements are important but that it is also important we be clear about which conditions must be fulfilled if the agreements are to be beneficial, in environmental terms too. On this, I completely agree with what Mr de Silva said, to the effect that the environmental agreements can only be supplementary in areas in which they can be used to bring about improvements, or added value, in the environmental sphere, and that they should not just be used to avoid environmental regulation in a particular area. In addition, it is important that the objectives and deadlines be carefully specified in connection with the agreements and that they also be sure to cover a representative sample of the relevant businesses and production in the area in question, so that one group of businesses is not given the opportunity to freewheel. I think that complete openness in relation to the public, to this Parliament, to the environmental organisations and to civil society is also important. There must be openness in connection with plans to enter into the environmental agreements, but also considerable scope for objecting to the use of environmental agreements in a specific area. Finally, it is important, in connection with the agreements, that a monitoring and penalties system be established so that it can in actual fact be monitored whether the agreements, and objectives laid down in those agreements, are also being fulfilled during the periods of the agreements. In my own country, Denmark, too, we have experimented with environmental agreements in some areas, for example the PVC area, in which there was not enough in terms of provisions governing monitoring and penalties. It emerged, when the period had elapsed, that absolutely nothing had happened in terms of improving the use of PVC materials. It is therefore very important that these matters be clarified in connection with entering into environmental agreements.

Political group: PSE
Mr Commissioner, I can understand that you do not wish to change your decision despite the fact that ten Member States are against such a duty. I strongly disagree with you, Mr Lamy. I disagree with you on this matter just as much as I agreed with you this afternoon concerning the Korean shipbuilding policy. I believe it is important to emphasise that here we are looking at a coke industry that has only 800 employees, but that we have a user industry with over 6 000 employees that would be adversely affected in purely competitive terms by such an anti-dumping duty. I can however understand the fact that you still disagree with me, so I probably have nothing to gain from putting the question to you one more time, but I believe that you should take account of the fact that ten Member States are against such a duty.

Political group: ELDR
I thank the Commissioner for that very clear answer. I would like to extend the question – and my apologies for not making it clear to him earlier – that this is not just about potato ring rot but also about a disease called ramorum dieback or sudden oak death, which was first seen in the EU in the Netherlands in 1997, but has now reached the UK. It is found in rhododendrons, camellias and native tree species and, last month, it was found in wild woodland in the UK. It is clearly a major problem for our country. The biggest exporters of such products are the Dutch plant auctions. It has also been alleged that some operators there have been spraying such plants with fungicide in order to mask traces of that particular disease, meaning that the disease shows itself at a later stage. I would be grateful if the Commission could look into these allegations, in particular to see whether this breaches the plant health directive, because, clearly, the disease has now crossed the border. We wish it to be eradicated where it is and certainly wish too that no other country should suffer as some of our plants and woods are already suffering.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my group is also very happy with the proposed directive as well as with the report. While we often hear that the European Union wants to proceed with integration too quickly in other areas, this is typically a matter that people think should have been settled long ago. In fact people often think that it has already been settled, and they are then disappointed to find out that free movement is not as free as they thought. This is about a Swede who wants to go and live and work in Italy, for example. This is now being simplified. Now I know that some Members of this Parliament, and particularly some Member States, think that this is about migration. I find that rather far-fetched. It is mainly about the free movement of EU citizens and only concerns people from third countries if they are married to or are in long-term relationships with EU citizens. So let us keep it in perspective. An important part of this is naturally the fact that many people wanting to travel within the EU or who want to go and live in another country will not want to do this on their own but with their families or their partners. A great deal has been said about this in the report, the definition has been broadened and my group is satisfied with that. I conclude from Mr Pirker’s amendments and comments, however, that the definition remains extremely controversial. Marriage – we think that this is logical; the person’s spouse must be allowed to accompany them. We also think registered partnerships are surmountable; the person’s registered partner must also be allowed to accompany them. We have difficulty with long-term relationships, however. I would therefore like to quote Mr Pirker, to show that I have been listening to him closely. He said: ‘We must distance ourselves from the idea that only a few people know what the definition of ‘family’ is.’ I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think that the most important thing is that people are committed to each other, that people want to take responsibility for each other, that people want to care for each other, and I think that it is therefore absurd that we want to disrupt family life because there is a certain official signature missing. You can also look at alternatives; how long people have been living together, for example. There are alternatives; the most important thing is that people are committed to each other, that they have a family life. Perhaps there is an official signature missing, but let us, as the European Union, see what we can do about it, not disrupt family life because there is a signature missing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, today we are debating social policy. I would like to warmly thank Mrs Van Lancker and Mrs Kratsa for the huge effort they have made in order to set down thoughts from within Parliament on paper. I would like to make two observations in this regard. Firstly, we used to debate the social action programme, and an action programme implies that something is done. We are now discussing the social agenda and this could mean that something is done, but not necessarily, and so this is one of the aspects which we need to continually bear in mind. We are dealing with a Socialist-inspired Council, so chances are that there will be a lot of talk and little action. I hope I will be proved wrong. What matters is that something is put on the agenda and that something is done. This is the aim of this report and we have tried to emphasise this in a number of amendments. Today we are discussing social policy, as the rapporteur pointed out earlier. In our Group, we have always set great store by the social market economy as a basis for everything we do, also within the framework of the European Union. Fortunately, we have largely managed to bring about the common market. We have also managed to bring about a few things in the social sphere, but not everything, and this was because the Treaty of Amsterdam had not taken effect at the time; so, in this light, the social action programme or this social agenda is of particular significance. We need to try to list and identify the gaps left in the system, and at least put them on the agenda. The importance of drafting an agenda is that we can include items which we hope the Commission will develop further. A number of such points are included. It would have been very wrong on the part of this Parliament not to make any mention of these points, but I am aware that we have not yet solved all the problems related to these points. It is thus something which we are passing on to the Commission for further examination. I would now like to turn to the point of open coordination which I believe is crucial. In fact, I would also like to refer to the recommendation made by Mr Cocilovo, which admittedly is not being discussed here but which will be voted on later. In particular, his recommendation responds to Parliament’s observations on employment. This is why little mention is made of this in the present report. However, these two recommendations should actually be seen as one entity for the picture to be complete. I think there are some problems left unsolved, but these will need to be addressed in the course of the votes on the amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, you will be aware that I raised the issue at the Bureau last week about a grossly intimidatory and intrusive demonstration in front of the Parliament in Brussels, so I was equally surprised yesterday to see exactly the same thing happening again. Apparently, the courtyard of the Parliament is a public space. It is under the control of the gendarmerie here in Strasbourg and apparently there has been some breakdown in communications. They had not informed Parliament that this demonstration was going to take place yesterday. I agree with Mr Van Orden. Everybody is entitled to their democratic point of view, but certainly it was intimidatory to both Members and guests, hundreds of whom were trying to get into to Parliament at the same time. So I very much hope that the administration in Strasbourg will ensure that we do not have to go through that again. I make no comment on the issue that was being raised, but this is the second time that access to Parliament has been impeded by the same demonstrators.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the rapporteur should be congratulated on the excellent work that was done so intelligently. A good proposal such as this is actually crying out for implementation in practice, and we should commit our policies to it wholeheartedly for our own sake. The report states quite rightly our own importance as the largest donor of aid to many ACP countries, a fact which is not yet sufficiently reflected at political level in the resolution of conflicts. This must be the starting point for any action we take. For that reason, I welcome the fact that the report speaks about the importance of positive conditionality with a high level of self-confidence. There are good grounds for that. The profile that crises have assumed in the last few decades has decidedly changed. The UN, which was originally established to respond to conflicts between states, is seeking once again to get a grip on managing the increasingly common crises taking place internally in countries. For this reason the EU, as an economic and political partner, now has an enormous responsibility and, furthermore, plenty of scope for influencing situations. The trend worldwide would appear to be that more and more conflicts have a religious dimension: Kosovo, Chechnya, southern Sudan, Northern Ireland, East Timor, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Kashmir and, one of the worst in recent times, the Moluccas, in Indonesia. In the West this is not completely understood. We are easily led to believe that when religion plays a part we are dealing with a private matter. But in these countries religious tensions have been used for political purposes. Mr President, we need the right tools to solve this delicate problem. One important aim would be, in my opinion, to create the post of human rights observer, or representative, who would report to the EU, particularly on the issue of religious tensions. The EU would also have to put pressure on governments, determinedly and systematically, to allow international human rights observers access to countries at war to conduct an impartial, neutral study of conflicts. We must also use all the means available to us to demand that governments should always commit to ensuring the safe passage of those taking humanitarian aid to various regions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, I am sure you would understand me perfectly if I spoke in German but, in honour of the Greek Presidency, I shall torment the interpreters with my Greek. Mr President-in-Office, I fully endorse your presentation of the situation in Afghanistan. I think we all feel a reserved satisfaction; we all see the continuing shortcomings in Afghanistan and we all know what has to be done over coming years. You yourself referred to the lack of security, the hostilities and the production and trafficking of narcotics, as did the Commissioner, and I think that the House is in full agreement with the timetable you suggest for elections in Afghanistan and improving the situation in general. There is no need for me to repeat what we are all agreed on. I should like to highlight two points which should not be left out of any discussion of Afghanistan. One is the terrible events which have taken place in the name of the fight against terrorism. Let there be no misunderstanding: I am behind the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan or anywhere else 100%. The warlords and the Taliban were never our allies. It was not the European Union that trained, armed and helped the Taliban through Pakistan. It was not us who created the forces we are now fighting against. But the fight against terrorism, the fight against violations of human rights and terrorism against women, the fight for democracy and the rule of law is only a credible fight if it is fought within a framework of respect for human rights and respect for the right to life of people who may be terrorists or criminals. I should like to add to today’s debate on Afghanistan by mentioning two very dark sides to this war. First, the horrendous allegations about the slaughter in Mazar-I-Sharif. I think the UN has an obligation both to investigate and examine these allegations closely and to make known and publish the results of their enquiries. And secondly, we should be ashamed about the fate of prisoners in Guantanamo and other detention camps run by the American military for members of the Taliban who have been arrested and people who have been imprisoned and are being called Taliban. The European Union should do something about this, it is a disgrace.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know whether I shall find anything much to add to Mrs Gillig’s superb speech. I believe this report will not allow me to move towards workers at Metaleurop, Alstom, France Télécom or many other companies, who are currently clearly threatened by mass restructuring and harsh, unacceptable mass redundancies, often due, furthermore, to shareholders’ completely uncontrolled actions. In this context, the endless calls for social dialogue are a rather surreal figure of speech. The commitment we must make today is very clearly to a policy of democratisation within companies that breaks with this unacceptable way in which employees are currently hired and fired, given intermittent work or made redundant. I believe that the social situation, which is further exacerbated by the economic recession, is currently creating a despicable climate to which this report is certainly not capable of responding in a credible way. Must we, in this kind of situation, forbid ourselves from investigating, from taking a closer look – I am well aware that it is rather unusual to talk about this in this House – at certain experiments in reducing working hours, negotiated experiments which create jobs, which have considerably improved the economic performance of certain large companies, which have considerably improved the quality of social relations in the workplace and the quality of work? Must we prevent ourselves from taking a look at these experiments and drawing the conclusions that, in my opinion, are generally extremely interesting? Must we stop ourselves examining the capacity to develop many activities that are useful socially or for environmental management and whose potential we suspect, but which, I regret to say, receive very little support or recognition. I believe it would be far more interesting to show imagination, rather than to keep trotting out old-fashioned ideas that we have heard all too often. We must start to show an interest in this kind of debate and initiative.

Political group: Verts-ALE