GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, if the European Union is to have any future it needs the supports of its citizens and this can only be achieved if people trust the Union and its institutions. As things stand, the institutions are too often experienced as remote and bureaucratic – something which has had negative repercussions for Parliament as shown, for instance, in the low turnout in the last elections. Taking part in competitions for jobs in the European Union is for many people their first close-up experience of the European institutions. Any doubts concerning the fairness of the competitions must therefore be taken seriously. The fact that these competitions have been surrounded by suspicions of irregularities and favouritism in the media has been quite damaging to the public perception of the institutions. Having good staff and officials is obviously in itself essential for well-functioning institutions and this can only be assured if the recruitment procedure is impartial and as objective as possible. Transparency in the procedure, with due respect for the independence of the boards, is central in this regard. Allowing the candidates to see their marked tests is a simple means of increasing transparency and confidence in the procedure for the recruitment of European civil servants. The Ombudsman's initiative and recommendations can therefore be warmly welcomed, as can the decision by the Commission to follow them. The example should be followed by all other institutions and bodies, as the Committee on Petitions has recommended. It is vital to the construction and administration of a multinational community such as the EU that there should be no suspicions whatever of discrimination between candidates for posts in the administration, whether on national or other grounds. I therefore thank the Ombudsman for his report, which I fully support. I also thank the Commission for having agreed to follow the Ombudsman's recommendation to allow the candidates access to their marked tests in future competitions. I call for all other institutions to follow this example.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, some people may wonder why we are devoting time to discussing flooding – even flooding on this scale – in Algeria. In fact a debate is currently raging about this idea of concern. Recently, at a large meeting in Nuremberg, a leading German Orientalist complained that in parts of the Islamic world people were not concerned enough about the atrocious events in New York. At the time I replied that we too have shown very little concern about Chechnya, where over 100 000 people have been murdered, or Iraq, where over 100 000 people, mainly children, have starved to death. In fact there is a kind of partial culture of concern which is divided along cultural and geographical lines. That is why we need to ensure that we also have compassion for our Muslim and Arab partners when they are hit by catastrophes of this kind, so that terrorists cannot – and after all this was the aim of 11 September – play off one civilisation against another and actually orchestrate the 'clash of civilisations'. The dead in Algeria are also our dead. The homeless in Algeria are also our homeless. If we speak of a global village in economic terms then we must also speak of a global village of compassion and solidarity. That is why, where our partners in the Mediterranean, in the Arab world, are concerned, who are on our doorstep and with whom we need to work more closely than ever, it is the European Union's duty to provide substantial humanitarian aid, and also to ensure that Algeria is put in a position where it is more capable than it has been in the past of helping itself. Helping people to help themselves must be our overriding aim, but of course our aim now must also be to provide the victims of this disaster with direct practical help, not only by giving them money, not only by writing them a big cheque, but also by making it clear to them that what happens to them is something which we Europeans are deeply concerned about, something which matters to us as much as what happens to ourselves.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are witnessing what I see as speedy preparation for a new bout in the dirty war against Yugoslavia and its people and everything going on outside Kosovo over the last few days bears witness to this. On the other hand, as we have heard today, the much-vaunted “Energy for Democracy” programme amounts to no more than barbaric blackmail of the Yugoslav people by NATO and the European Union in a bid to impose the New Order and completely subjugate them. The point is whether or not a country has the right to decide its fate and choose its government. In Yugoslavia, the people decided democratically and Yugoslavia has its government and its president. And whether we like it or not, that is a fact. What sort of logic is it which, in order to punish the supposed suppressor of a people, punishes his supposed victims? Mr President, that is what is being done with the barbaric bombing, that is what is being done with the fuel embargo on Yugoslavia. We are supporting a policy of genocide against a people which does not accept the choices foisted on it by the USA, NATO and the European Union. My question is this: because there have already been a great many deaths due to the cold, will the fuel embargo be lifted and will the Yugoslav people be left to decide its own fate?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the World Conference on Women, which was held five years ago, meant a breakthrough at the time in the worldwide recognition of women’s rights as an area of human rights autonomy and empowerment. In contrast to this, I have mixed feelings about the UN Conference which was held in New York last week. On the one hand, it was confirmed that it is up to governments to guarantee equal rights for women and to pursue sound emancipation policy, and, despite many people’s fears, no retrograde steps were taken. On the other hand, it was once again impossible to reach agreement on sensitive issues which had not been resolved at Beijing, such as the recognition of the right to self-determination for women in their personal life, including their free choice in pregnancy and sexual behaviour or sexual preference. This is greatly disappointing. Actual equality and freedom for women is only possible if all options are open to them and if the traditional family image is not held up to them as the only true one. Resistance of the kind displayed by governments, diplomats and officials last week, is a form of rearguard action, however. It is impossible to stop a revolution with clever word games and little schemes behind the scenes. The fight goes on. The true inspiration which I gained from last week’s conference in New York lay in the power of the international women’s movement which, contrary to popular belief, is as vigorous and alive as ever and is also bolstered by a new generation of young women who, strong and well-informed, stand up for all kinds of issues. The European Union and Member State representatives showed great commitment during the Conference to the issue of sexual self-determination for women and the non-discrimination principle pursuant to Article 13. The fact that this did not end up in the final document should not be a reflection on them. What can, however, be expected of the Council and Commission, is that they put their money where their mouths are in their respective Chambers. In addition to what we obtained last week, namely reparative legislation on equality in work and professional life, they should produce new additional legislation to prevent sex discrimination across the entire range of social life. Article 13 offers the opportunity to do so and the Beijing +5 Conference issued an instruction to this effect. Surely a European Union which, at international conferences, is full of rhetoric on banishing sex discrimination should set about developing effective policy instruments which can attain this goal at the level of the Union itself. ***

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I vigorously contest what Mr Oostlander has said. I did not think much of the placards behind me either, but – particularly as their group has fewer placards on display – he should have a word with his colleague Mr Helmer, who held up a placard bearing the word ‘Blitzkrieg’. Now, anyone can use placards to express his intellectual stance, and Mr Helmer has done so today, seeming to be the intellectual heir of the people who once held such placards aloft. Mr Oostlander, if you quote Max van der Stoel and say that the basis may not be convincing, but that, in moral terms, the action is justified, you can also try putting it the other way round and saying that an action is justified only if it is taken on a truly convincing basis. If there is even a whisper of doubt, you are assuming responsibility for endangering human lives. War must always be the last resort of politics, but it cannot be the last resort as long as the policy is a matter of doubt. If ever there were an avoidable war, this one is it. A few days ago, ladies and gentlemen, we were presented with the option of coming to a decision on the basis of reports from two respectable diplomats, Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei. They said, or rather Mr ElBaradei said, that there were no nuclear weapons, and that they had found none, and Mr Blix said that his mission had been successful and that we could, given a couple more months, disarm Iraq peacefully. The two gentlemen who made these proposals were not radical s, nor were they anti-American agitators; on the contrary, they are thoroughly respectable diplomats from the United Nations, and were showing us a peaceful way ahead, for which there was a majority in the Security Council. There was, though, also a minority, to which the Pope could have given his apostolic blessing, had they nonetheless voted for this war because they had forged a coalition – not of the willing, but of the wilful – which wanted this war to happen come what may. I am not impugning the many Members here in this House who believe, on the basis of profound inner conviction, that this tinpot dictator can be got rid of only by the use of armed force. That is one way of looking at things, but not in the least does it alter the fact that these two gentlemen I have quoted showed us a peaceful way forward, and I have heard all those in this House – including those in your group, Mr Poettering – who have said that this was the right way to go. If this was the right way to go, why do you not summon up the courage to say that the war is the wrong way? That, after all, would be the logical conclusion to come to. Let me say again that those who defy all reason by going down this road also bear the responsibility for the bloody consequences along the way – consequences about which we will all be talking for a long time yet, because we will all be suffering from them. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs Hermange’s report is in fact a very important one. Recognition, enforcement and cooperation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children are of such great value that the Group of the will vote unreservedly in favour of all of the amendments and Mrs Hermange’s report. We will do this because we know how important the protection of children is. As you know, I am a member of a Franco-German mediation group, and know what difficulties and sad cases we have to deal with in it. It is the children themselves who suffer. We will vote in favour, although as a Member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and as a rapporteur, or a designated rapporteur for this Committee – we could not draw up another report because there was not enough time to do so – I would like to make a few remarks. In fact, I would like to mention three questions, which I forwarded to the Commission through Mr Gargani, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and also a question that Mrs Hermange asked, which referred to the importance of this agreement in connection with Community law. We have Brussels II, we have drawn up legislation for the European Union, and our input into this legislation is, in my view, highly creditable. Yet, at the same time, the Commission allowed this agreement to be discussed and certain things to be deliberated on without informing Parliament or giving it the chance to be involved. That poses an important institutional question as to what the connection is between the agreement and the European legislative procedure, and what Parliament’s rights are on this matter. The upshot is that we agree with this exception, because we see this agreement as exceptionally important and we do not want children to be punished in any way just because it there a potential interinstitutional conflict. We will, however, raise this question again in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, since it cannot be acceptable for Parliament’s rights to be annulled due to parallel legislation at European and International level. That would not be in the least bit sensible.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, first of all I should like to thank you very much because the aeroplane from Amsterdam to Strasbourg flew this morning and on time as well. I think that your intervention with regard to the French Government was fantastic. Thank you very much. But I am taking the floor about another matter. I put questions to the European Commission on 10 November about favouring public broadcasts regarding the auction of radio frequencies in the Netherlands. Three months have passed since then. I have still not had a reply to these questions. Now this is a very sensitive issue, so I understand that it is very difficult for Mr Monti to reply to it, but the auction is taking place this summer. I should very much like an answer to these questions either this week or next week. I have already informed the competent services of this but nothing has happened yet. Perhaps you could do something for me.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I had understood that Mr Verheugen was going to give a full explanation of the interview that he gave to the Süddeutsche Zeitung. One important point he made was that he felt that, in his opinion, there should have been a referendum in Germany on the introduction of the euro. Well, it is not too late. Does he still think that German public opinion should be tested on the euro and what does he think the result would be?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to ask whether human rights are universal or whether they only apply to certain countries.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am all in favour of the labelling of beef. Reforms in beef production introduced in Britain following the beef crisis now make British beef among the highest quality and safest in the world. In time, I am confident that consumers not just in Britain but throughout the EU will recognise this fact and actively search out British beef. Full labelling will therefore work to British beef farmers' advantage. If such a confidence-building measure also speeds the end of the illegal French ban on British beef, then so much the better. EU citizens will recognise good beef when they see it. They will also recognise law-breaking and hypocrisy when they see it. The French beef ban, as everyone but the French Government agrees, is illegal and totally unjustified. The French beef ban is also hypocritical and unworthy of a French Government that claims to be at the heart of Europe. Hence Labour MEPs dignified walkout during the official opening of the new Parliament building on Tuesday. MEPs should not make EU laws in a country that breaks EU laws. In contrast, I can only praise the restraint and respect for the law shown by farmers in the north-west and Britain as a whole throughout this crisis. I urge them to continue to show such responsibility. I also urge the Commission to institute fast-track proceedings against the French Government as soon as possible. Furthermore, I urge the Commission to investigate the possibility of compensation for hard-pressed British beef farmers, many of them driven almost to the wall by the beef ban. In this connection, I welcome new proposals by my Socialist Group colleagues for a European Small Claims Court to help people facing ruin due to EU disputes in future. We should never forget, however, where ultimate responsibility for this crisis lies. It was the Tories who, through lax regulation, caused the crisis. It was the Tories, who, through their ludicrous beef war, escalated the crisis. And it is the Tories now, who, through irresponsible calls for illegal retaliatory boycotts, are trying to extend the crisis for their own party political gain. While the Tories continue to play politics, however, Labour continues to work, with the support of the NFU, to get the ban lifted. - Helsinki European Council

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I also rise on a point of order. Are there any rules or regulations that govern demonstrations within the building of this Parliament, outside the doors of the Hemicycle, to ensure that MEPs are free to come into this Hemicycle to discharge their mandate? If there are such rules, who has the responsibility for enforcing them and what are they doing to discharge that responsibility?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would also like to express my gratitude and congratulations for the work carried out both by the rapporteur, Mrs Palacio, and by those who have worked on it in the Council and the Commission. Of course, it is essential that we have a legal framework in place as soon as possible. However, I would like to make certain observations which may be useful in this second phase which is so necessary. We should not forget that the Internet is international. We are talking about a directive for the internal market, but, as its original name, the ‘World Wide Web’, suggests, it is international and we should bear this in mind as a fundamental reference, above all because the Internet is going to determine Europe’s economic position in the future, as well as its political position and its ability to influence the global, social and cultural environment. I therefore believe it is fundamental that we bear in mind that the bulk of this success stems from the creation of new companies, the creation of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, in the review which is carried out, it is essential that we remember not only the consumers – who in any event must make their own decisions and must use mechanisms for encrypting and protecting their data in accordance with laws and with technology – but also the SMEs, because otherwise there will soon be little electronic commerce in Europe. It therefore seems essential to make a genuine effort to homogenise the rules of the internal market and, at the same time, work energetically to unify the principles applied on a global level with regard to electronic commerce. There is no point in having sound regulations for our internal market if we lose sight of the bigger picture. In order to achieve this, it is also important to bear in mind that the regulations of the country of origin are fundamental, since, without them, small- and medium-sized businesses would find it difficult to operate and would encounter obstacles to achieving their objectives, because they do not have access to the same resources as large companies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to welcome the Greek prime minister and wish him every success. We all know that Greece is a relatively small country. No one expects any miracles. But they do expect the right approach. This is not the first Greek Presidency; there have been two previous presidencies, both of which themselves open to a great deal of criticism. However, the previous presidencies held by the same party, PASOK, when Andreas Papandreou was prime minister, did leave us one useful legacy: a fighting stance, which often went against the grain, on the question of peace. I trust that this positive trend, which is demonstrated both by our country as a whole and its ruling party, will continue today, especially on the question of Iraq. As the chairman of the quite rightly said, you cannot hide behind the Security Council. With four members in the Security Council, the European Union should be fighting to block a war. I listened very closely to the prime minister’s speech and I should like to comment on three points which worry me. First, the fact that the prime minister said that this is a joint annual programme of the Greek and Italian presidencies. In my opinion, Mr Simitis is – and needs to be – one thing, and Mr Berlusconi is another, and I fail to see how they will find any common ground on social issues, on democratic issues, on the issue of relations with the USA or on media issues. A second point which worries me is that agricultural policy – and I am thinking here of small family-run holdings, especially in the south, being squeezed by reforms and by what is happening in the World Trade Organisation – warranted no more than one line at the end of the prime minister’s speech. I expect him to refer to this at greater length in his next speech. And the third point has to do with social issues. Mr Prime Minister, I am waiting for Greece to apply Directive 70/1999 on fixed-term work. It should have started applying this directive on 10 July 2002 but has yet to do so. Please do not put Mrs Diamantopoulou in the unenviable position of having to institute proceedings against Greece before the European Court.

Political group: GUE-NGL