GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The extreme confusion that has characterised the electoral process over recent weeks in Côte d'Ivoire, which had looked like a model economy until now, is symptomatic of a country in crisis, reflected by an economy in crisis, social despair and, consequently, political chaos. The real issues and national debates were overshadowed by the spurious yet contentious debate about Ivoirian nationality. Côte d'Ivoire was driven into this widespread catastrophe because it was caught in the stranglehold of its financial commitment to lend credibility to its economic prospects and the cruel and indiscriminate fallout from international trade negotiations. That really is the antithesis of the model of true sustainable development, the policy for the future that we advocate. The West bears a patent and overwhelming responsibility for the current collapse of the Ivoirian system. By introducing oils and fats other than cocoa butter into the ingredients of chocolate, the European Parliament has brought about the ruin of this top international cocoa producer's entire national industry. It knocked its social and political system off balance and has even led to the mass graves of Ivoirian civilians, the ultimate but also the direct victims of this chain of decisions and consequences starting in Brussels and ending in Ypougon. The firmly condemn all the acts of violence committed following the elections and lament the victims. Real democracy cannot now be established in Côte d'Ivoire unless an independent commission of inquiry is set up to look into the crimes committed and unless an official undertaking is given on respect for human rights and civil peace. Similarly, this democratic process can only become more credible if a national reconciliation committee is created, together with a national electoral committee to prepare and guarantee future elections, especially the elections of 10 December. It is vital to have foreign observers at these elections to make sure they are conducted legally.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, let me, too, start by congratulating Mr Ebner on his report, in which, taking the positive experience of the European Year of Languages as his starting point, he highlights the growing awareness in Europe of the way in which languages bridge the gaps between cultures and cultures the gulfs that divide people, and points out that we must accordingly – if I may exaggerate to make a point – stop dreaming of the ‘American model’ of one language and no culture, instead really discovering in the diversity of our languages and cultures a keynote, something indeed of fundamental value for our future. Knowing our neighbours’ language and culture better means understanding them better and respecting them, and so I see language as performing an essential task in the sense that knowledge of other people’s languages promotes peace. If we look more closely into the trouble spots in and around Europe, we discover that a lack of respect for those who are different – which involves languages – has very often brought about the trouble in the first place and led to the situation in these places worsening. I therefore see language as being about more than knowing and respecting others. I see language as the best peacekeeping force that we in Europe can deploy. The report makes clear, though, that, in an ever-expanding Europe, there is increasing awareness of regional cultures and also of regional languages. Belonging as I do to the German-speaking community in Belgium, I can see that respecting this is not a luxury for those regions that enjoy autonomy, but something I regard as a European fundamental right. It is for that reason that governments have – as we have just heard said – the primary task of guaranteeing the cultures of smaller regions and their right to have their voices heard. We should then, at the European level, give consideration to what additional instruments we employ. We appreciate Mr Ebner’s work in representing us in this House. We know that German is spoken in Italy and Belgium ...

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, it distresses me greatly to have to contradict Mr von Wogau and it perhaps distresses me even more to have to contradict Mr Goepel, but let me take the formal part first. The formal part is that we agreed and decided on the agenda this morning. Mr von Wogau, you are a great stickler for procedure, even more so than I. I am perhaps on occasions somewhat more relaxed, which is why I think it is important that we keep to this agenda. The second argument is that, apart from the fact that Mr Byrne will probably arrive at any moment, we should be clear Mr von Wogau – and this is a fact, as you well know – that nothing which we say today will come as a surprise to Mr Byrne. We can always ask Mr Byrne questions afterwards. As to the first part of what you said, Mr von Wogau, I would ask you to have a little respect for Members’ engagements, i.e. the engagements of those of us who have perhaps put off other things in order to be present here and the engagements of other Members who have not yet had time to prepare for a different debate. Now to what Mr Goepel said. Mr Goepel, as to what the Council is doing, allow me to say to you quite plainly that that is the second part of the debate which is to follow, namely the report by Mr Papayannakis on beef labelling. What the Council is doing is a matter of indifference to me. This Parliament has the right of codecision on this proposal. This Parliament has the right to decide alone. If the Council thinks it should be present, fine. If the Council does not think it should be present, so much the better, because we shall take the decision here which we consider to be right; if necessary, we may even go to the European Court of Justice and then decide. Then we shall consider how to deal with the Council. I do not need a Council representative here in order to tell them that I think they are undemocratic. We can say that afterwards in the debate. I think it is important that we proceed with the agenda as it now stands.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for Sweden’s Christian Democratic Party, eastern enlargement is the EU’s main priority. After two horrific world wars and fifty years of Communist oppression and dictatorship when – in the name of an oppressive class struggle – democracy, religious freedom, the environment and our Christian and universal dignity as human beings were trampled on, it is now finally time to unite our continent and our part of the world. I want to address Commissioner Verheugen personally with a few comments but, before that, I wish to affirm that we in Sweden have never doubted that Mr Verheugen wants to see enlargement towards the East and that the criticism that has been directed against him has been partly motivated by malice. I should now like to comment on the following points. Firstly, allow each candidate country to negotiate on the basis of its own merits. Let it be worth a country’s while to be ambitious in achieving the EU objectives. Secondly, say no to the big bang idea of incorporating candidate countries simultaneously as a large group, since that would militate against the principle that each country should be admitted on its own merits. Thirdly, gradually devise target dates for each candidate country. Fourthly, demonstrate strong European solidarity by means of financial contributions in favour of better environmental conditions in the Eastern countries, bearing in mind the appalling environmental legacy from Communist times from which they suffer. Fifthly, and so as to be able to admit new candidate countries, make no new demands for a further intergovernmental conference and for further Treaty changes after Nice. Sixthly and lastly, ensure that existing Member States display solidarity and discernment regarding deepening cooperation so that we do not create an EU again divided into A, B and C teams. Let us unify Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in order to overcome the problem of its scant fish stocks, the European Union has, amongst other measures, concluded agreements with third countries with a view to using these countries’ territorial waters in exchange for financial compensation. In 2002, the European Union signed an agreement of this nature with Mozambique, which was seen by many as the perfect agreement, because it managed to combine cooperation and mutual interest: in the next three years the Community fleet will be able to fish in Mozambican territorial waters in return for financial compensation of around EUR four million. This balanced agreement is in actual fact ideal. Firstly, because it covers species which have abundant stocks in Mozambique; shrimp and tuna. Secondly, it seeks to develop local fisheries by training Mozambican crews. Thirdly, Community compensation has been earmarked for tangible objectives in the fisheries sector. The fourth and last point is that the agreement’s implementation will be monitored, with particular attention being paid to the sanitation aspects of catches. I agree with the requirement laid down by the European Parliament, through its rapporteur, Mr Stevenson, to receive an annual report on the agreement’s application and on the implementation of its measures, which will enable this institution closely to monitor this agreement – of strategic importance for the European Union’s common fisheries policy – thereby keeping up to date in preparation for any negotiations, when it comes to renewing the agreement. I wish to conclude by expressing my complete satisfaction at the signing of this agreement, which is so well balanced. I am truly convinced that, unlike the previous agreement, Mozambique will have no reason to be unhappy with this text.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, postal services and post offices seem to be very topical in Parliament at the moment and rightly so, given their importance. Only last week, in the UK parliament at Westminster the newly-elected MP from our partners, Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, made his maiden speech on that subject. The Scottish parliament too recently had a debate with particular reference to the role which post offices, especially in rural areas, play in service provision and the sustainability of rural communities. Liberalisation is not the only potential threat to post office services. Post office outlets in Scotland, as we have heard, handle much more than just mail delivery. Traditionally they have been used by governments and some local authorities as an agency for the payment of state pensions and other benefits as well as a local collection centre for house rents, local taxes and so on. But as the modernisation of public financial systems leads to more and more electronic cash movements straight to and from bank accounts, so the viability of rural post offices is being threatened. If a rural post office closes, usually with the only local shop attached, then a major threat to community sustainability and to social inclusion can result. Instead of allowing post office outlets to be undermined by liberalisation or by the modernisation of systems, governments, and the Commission too, should be encouraging and supporting the extensive network of post office outlets and viewing these as an asset which can be built upon, providing public information and services from a location which is convenient for residents.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I wish to indicate in the way I vote my support for considering the point of view of farmers with regard to GM labelling. We need more reliable information on origin than we have at present so that farmers can be sure about what the produce they buy, especially from outside the EU, contains. At the moment farmers cannot completely guarantee that the food or raw materials they produce are GM free. No responsibility can be taken unless raw materials can be comprehensively monitored. To ensure that farmers and, at the same time, the others in the food chain are legally protected, it is important to keep the GMO labelling threshold at 1%. Any reduction in this will not significantly improve consumer protection; on the contrary, the system will be prone to incorrect labelling. Similarly, labelling eggs or milk, whose checking process has involved the use of GMOs, will be of no benefit, owing to the questionable degree of reliability involved. Farmers cannot give assurances using current technology regarding the GM content of the raw materials they use. Extending traceability to livestock products, where GM feed has been used in feeding the animals, is not a realistic idea. Traceability in such cases would in practice require the origin of all raw materials used in food to be monitored. The ten-year period for the maintenance of monitoring data, as proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, instead of the five years proposed by the Commission, is, in my opinion, unreasonably long. It will prove cumbersome and will not significantly increase levels of safety for the consumer. For the reasons outlined above I voted in favour of supporting the legal protection of farmers where it related to this issue.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I wonder how one of our Members managed to get up on the Presidential rostrum, an act that strikes me as utterly out of place in the course of our work, and done with the purpose of attaching a religious emblem that is incompatible with the EU’s motto of ‘unity in diversity’. Such a Christian cross has, obviously, no place as a symbol of our European Parliament, and I hope, Madam President, that no such incident will occur again. (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, disaster has struck once again in El Salvador, two years after Mitch, the terrible hurricane whose effects are still being felt to this day and for which, I might add, it would seem the European Union still has not come up with the money it had promised. I welcome the resolution which we were able to draft together, but I do consider it to be the bare minimum after all the disasters which El Salvador has experienced, and now after this last earthquake disaster. If truth be told, I find it a bit of a flimsy resolution, for although the feeling of solidarity which we all share and which gave rise to this resolution may be expressed well, we need to translate our solidarity into action, and that is why, on behalf of our group, we have tabled a few more amendments in order to bring this idea more into focus and to reinforce it. Among other things, this is to enable the existing plans for improving the situation to be put into practice, especially the reconstruction programmes, but we should also deliver the money that Europe had set aside for this. Despite this, we believe that the entire world, and we, along with the world, must express our dismay and solidarity, now that thousands of people have fallen victim to this earthquake. An earthquake in a poor country is, of course, all the more serious the less resistance and less resilience the country has. El Salvador has survived a war and natural disasters, and now there is this on top of everything else. In order to work ecologically in environmentally responsible circumstances, the government too should set its political preferences for certain forms of politicisation of aid to one side, and we, on the other hand, must meet our obligations.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in a recent survey in Morocco, 82% of secondary school students expressed their desire to emigrate to Europe. Last year, more than 100 000 Maghreb citizens tried to enter the European Union illegally. The differences in economic growth and wealth and the democratic differential between the European Union and the Maghreb is increasing. The gulf is widening. Furthermore, the most recent political processes in the European Union are demonstrating the extent to which this tragedy of the mass exodus of population leads to greater social and political upheaval, with the risk that this may lead to a growth in populism and the extreme right. We do not have much time left to reverse this trend and it seems to me that neither the Council nor the Commission realise how extremely serious the problems relating to the development prospects of the Maghreb and the countries of the South and East of the Mediterranean in general are. There is not much time left, perhaps a decade, but not much more. This Parliament had expressed the view that Euro-Mediterranean policy should be the top priority of the European Union’s external policy. Given the way things are developing, perhaps we should reach the conclusion that the European Union’s policy on the Maghreb and Euro-Mediterranean relations should also be one of our main internal priorities.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have two things to say. The first concerns the method: I consider it of vital importance that power over the treaties lies with the national parliaments. If power is passed to the European Parliament, a vital step will be taken towards converting the EU to a state, which I oppose. I am therefore also sceptical regarding the convention method. If such a method is to be applied, it must be a convention for the national parliaments who are to discuss the treaty. My second point concerns content. In my opinion it is not sufficient to discuss the points stated in Nice. Instead, discussion should centre upon democratic reform of the European Union, providing full insight into the legislative work and reducing the power of civil servants, especially within the Commission. A unique situation currently prevails where civil servants have the deciding influence over the content of legislation, which is a problem in terms of democracy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to comment on what Mr MacCormick said. The European Ombudsman has asked the Commission to carry out an investigation for the purpose of clarifying these financial declarations. I would ask the Commission to reply to the European Ombudsman, for matters are as Mr MacCormick described. There are things that are extremely unclear, and these must be clarified when the new Parliament meets. I would ask the Commission to reply to the Ombudsman’s enquiry about the same issue.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I have listened with great interest to the Commissioner's statement on the enlargement countries. I am sure if they join the Union, they will wish to ensure transparency and accountability in all the institutions. To this end, the President of the Commission this morning promised Parliament that he would publish the note to Commissioner Kinnock from Mr Jules Muis of the Internal Audit Service. This afternoon the Commission spokesman said that the Commission now had no plans to publish that note. Could the Commissioner please tell us why the Commission's line has changed from this morning and why it is refusing to publish this document so that the discharge of the Commission's budget can proceed as urgently and speedily as possible?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the USA unilaterally withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. This happened after their own national intelligence service stated that no missile threat from any ‘rogue state’ even exists, at least not for the next ten years. According to the American press, the Republicans in Congress pressured the intelligence organs to change their stance and to create a baseless threat scenario. A powerful missile shield is now being created in response to this figment of the imagination. Ultimately, nobody is safe from injustice and from the terrorism which draws strength from this. September's treacherous terror assaults show us where the true threats to security lie. A missile shield will militarise space, since antiballistic missiles operate in space. The result of this will be a renewed arms race, but in response to the USA's example we too are making a small decision on principle here: in our opinion Galileo may be used for military purposes in peacekeeping operations. The people of this world need common security and justice which applies to everyone. This must be the main goal of the Union. The hunt for terrorists will never end if we fail to remove the causes of uprisings and civil rights struggles. The demilitarisation of space, which was achieved with so much trouble during the Cold War, is ending without any rational reason. There will always be those who are ready to carry out absurd acts. Is it the case that when the absurd act does not concern individual structures, but the entire world, it becomes more acceptable? When we worry just about our own security, we are sowing the seeds of war.

Political group: PSE
I welcome Mr Duhamel’s report as an interesting and constructive contribution to the idea of constitutionalisation of the Treaties. While it could be argued that the existing Treaties are in essence the European Constitution they are difficult to read and their articles are not always in a logical order. A future Constitution could set out in a clear and (relatively) concise way -

Political group: PSE
Two accidents have focused our attention over the last ten days. The first was in Tokaimura in which some 45 people were injured and 3 are in a critical condition in hospital. The second, was the rail crash in London which involved a train taking hundreds of people from the capital to the region of England I represent, in which 70 died and 200 were injured. While I wish to think of the individuals and families of those who died or were injured in the railway accident, I am afraid that the two accidents are very different. Accidents in transport systems can endanger the lives of hundreds of people. Unfortunately, a nuclear accident can affect potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Mrs McNally made the point that near Tokyo, in Tokaimura, 300,000 people were confined to their homes. It appears that the accident was not as severe as we first thought. As a former Japanese civil servant, and as a member of the Japanese delegation for the last 15 years, I wish to put on our record, however, our concern for the victims of this accident in Japan. I want to make three political points: firstly, it is very clear that human error or human stupidity is continually with us in all areas of endeavour. We cannot trust individuals. In Tokaimura, it would appear either that the workers – with the active collusion of management or owing to the failure of management to enforce regulations – were breaching regulations that were there in the interest of nuclear safety. There are stories that there was actually an illegal handbook produced by the management telling workers to operate in this way. The swift action of the Japanese police going into the company may enable us to establish whether that is the case. If it was the case, it demonstrates the truth of Nietzche’s dictum that madness is rare in individuals but common in parties, groups and organisations, which is why we need individual, independent monitoring of what goes on in nuclear plants. We need someone to guard those people from their own stupidity and errors. Secondly, it is clear that there is a lack of emergency planning. Thirdly, we have to say that we should be offering assistance to the Japanese if they request it. Finally, two factual corrections; firstly, our Amendment No 6 makes it clear, when we are calling for the plant not to be reopened until an investigation has taken place, that we are talking about the conversion plant and not the reprocessing plant in Tokaimura, which is a separate plant on a separate site operated by a separate company... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE