GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the defenders of the interests of the multinationals in this Parliament have not studied the subject of bananas properly. They have not studied it properly because they talk about the multiple decisions of the World Trade Organisation and Community violations of international law. In fact, so far the World Trade Organisation has only declared two extremes incompatible with international commercial law. The first is the partnership system which linked the importing of non-Community bananas with that of Community bananas. Community regulations on bananas were modified to comply with that decision. The second refers to the incompatibility of the exemption in favour of ACP countries within the Community system. In other respects, the Community system is wholly in accordance with community rules, international law and the rules of the World Trade Organisation. The problem is that in this case the Commission has been more papist than the Pope and, as Mr Fernández Martín has pointed out, more in favour of free trade than the multinationals themselves. In other words, at the moment the Commission wants to throw out the banana with everything else – it wants to throw out the baby with the bath water. It does not remain within the strict limits of compliance with our international obligations, but it is taking a political decision which would lead – as Mr Fernández Martín pointed out – to the dismantling of the whole of our Community agricultural policy. The Dary report, the Westendorp opinion and the Fernández Martín opinion ask the Commission to adapt so as to conform to international law, not to go beyond what it is laid down by the World Trade Organisation, to negotiate and, furthermore, to take account of the fact that, if we give in on this point, we are going to give in on other more important points, such as the maintenance of social and environmental policy requirements on a global level, which is how we stand internationally. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we have a very challenging task before us. We have to find answers to the challenge of enlargement, but the Union at its present size also needs to re-establish the rules of the game and the decision-making process. We have to strike a balance between efficiency, democracy and Member State equality. Above all, we have to be able to restore confidence of our citizens in decision making in the European Union. This will come about by increasing genuine transparency and by developing the way administration actually serves the people. The Commission must be given support while it puts the changes into effect, but the Council and Parliament must also themselves be able to work to strengthen confidence among our citizens. Both an enlarged Union, and one that is the present size, must ensure that decision making is mainly in the form of qualified majority decisions. We have seen that matters of taxation, for example, have become stumbling blocks. It is hard to understand why we cannot introduce a reasonable tax on capital in Europe. At present, capital is like a dog off its leash. We all have a lot to gain and protect in a common Europe. We also have to cling to the notion of European solidarity for as long as possible in changing circumstances. I cannot accept the idea that closer cooperation can be achieved on the strength of the vote of one third of the Member States. In my opinion, we need more than that. The Commission should also be as thorough as possible in the way it drafts topics for debate, and this is why in future there should also be a Commission Member representing each Member State. The balance between the small and the large Member States must also be preserved in the Council so that double majority voting can never be acceptable under any circumstances.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, thank you, although I regret that Mr Patten has perhaps not had time to come back to the sitting. On several occasions, I, like others, have been deeply concerned about the unilateralism of the United States. The list is a long one, covering collective security, human rights, development and environmental protection. What type of proposal should be made with regard to trans-Atlantic relations just a few weeks away from the Dublin Summit? Would not the best ‘service’ the Union could do for this partnership be to display a critical attitude with respect to American views in several areas and, especially, to take the initiative in different directions? I am thinking first of all of the distressing situation in the Middle East. Mr Prodi has described the assassination of the Hamas leader as an illegal and irresponsible act. I also heard, and duly noted, what the Council said at this morning’s debate. However, just a few days since the green light was given by President Bush to continue with the policy of occupation and division of Palestinian territory, when is Europe going to decide to take the courageous initiatives that are required and that it has the means to implement: suspend the EU-Israel agreement, insist that an international protection force be sent, and convene an international conference involving in particular the protagonists of the Geneva agreement? In Iraq, the blinkered attitude of the Bush administration, producing daily human tragedies, should mean, in this area too, far greater involvement of the European Union so that a real transfer of sovereignty guaranteed by the UN can take place as soon as possible. This critical attitude is again of relevance with respect to the American plans for the Middle East as a whole, attempting to impose a ‘democracy kit’ from the outside, mainly to guarantee American economic and strategic interests as defined by President Bush. Finally, the needs of the war on terrorism cannot be used to justify a drift towards discriminatory security. Also, I am concerned about the statements made by the Council and the Commission today, going back over Parliament’s rejection of the transfer of air passengers’ personal data. Apart from clearly essential security measures, observing the rule of law, the response to terrorism must not ignore its causes. Taking the initiative within the IMF or the WTO with a view to alleviating inequalities throughout the world could, again, be a useful European contribution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The case of the Kuwaiti prisoners of war is dramatic. These consist of more than 600 men and women dragged from their country by the defeated Iraqi forces when they withdrew, after having invaded and wrecked Kuwait ten years ago now. These people are perfectly identifiable thanks to a particular circumstance: 4 000 prisoners were being held in Bassora at the end of the war. At that point the Iraqi military, in an initial operation, carried off some of their captives, possibly towards Baghdad. Then the Shiite rebellion erupted in Bassora. It was ferociously repressed, but the remaining 3 000 or more prisoners were able to escape and return to their country. Those who returned were therefore able to precisely identify those others who had been their fellow captives. More then 600 disappearances in a population of 700 000 Kuwaitis is a very high number, and this case has therefore become a genuine national catastrophe. In the meantime, and despite the efforts of the Red Cross and the United Nations, the Iraqi regime has been refusing to provide any information about the fate of these people. The material difficulties of the families have been resolved by the Kuwaiti authorities, but the human tragedy is enormous. I have spoken to parents who have seen four sons disappear, wives who have seen their husbands taken away and young people who were children when their fathers were arrested. To the suffering of the victims themselves, we can therefore add the pain of their families and serious legal problems, such as those of the women who, after so much time, do not know whether they are married or widowed. My conviction is that the international community must demand that Iraq provides a response to these cases. However terrible the response may be, the suffering of the families will be less than the current situation of uncertainty, which is unbearable for them and intolerable to us. I will end by insisting on a point contained in the motion for a resolution. It recommends to the European Union and the Member States that, as a condition for normalising relations with Iraq, the leaders of that country must give answers to the question of the Kuwaiti prisoners of war. For the Group of the , this is as important as the demand that Iraq disarms from a nuclear, chemical and biological point of view. Let us hope that our resolution will serve both to encourage those, in Kuwait, who are maintaining pressure and hope, and as a warning to those in Iraq who are responsible for this grave situation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, when the Commissioner quotes the WHO Essential Medicines' List he knows that includes not just essential medicines, but the affordability of those medicines. Therefore, the very medicines we are discussing are excluded from the list in question.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted for the report but, both personally and on behalf of the Pensioners’ Party and as a convinced Europeanist, I ask that the Council should have less powers and Parliament have more powers. We know that the Council is elected by those elected by the citizens, but the European Parliament is elected directly by the citizens. We are Europe! Parliament should have the power to legislate, and the Council can have some little legislative duty that affects all the Member States, like defence and foreign policy, but not too much. I therefore insist that everything possible should be done to give the European Parliament all the power it deserves, as against the Council, whose powers should instead be reduced, since it does not deserve them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my congratulations to the rapporteur for a very fine report, which I know we will all support. I should also like to thank the Commissioner and his team for their fine work in the field. I remind colleagues that in October 2001 the oppression of Afghan women was highlighted globally. The assumption was made that the removal of the Taliban regime would ease the women's plight. Today, two and a half years on, Amnesty claims that the international community and the Afghan administration have been unable to protect the rights of women. Rape and sexual violence by members of the occupying armed forces are still widespread. In the western province of Herat, Taliban-like decrees are still widespread and, as a result of this oppression, more women in Afghanistan are committing suicide now than they were under the Taliban regime. Human Rights Watch reports many sexual assaults against children. Despite the rhetoric, the creation of the Women's Ministry, the Karzai Government pursues anti-women policies, and there is no legal protection, while older legal systems still in position prohibit them from getting help. Women's resistance to the regime still has to work underground. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan is forbidden to open an office and distribute its magazine. People caught reading its literature are still in physical danger. Commissioner Patten said that Afghanistan had reached a crossroads. I believe, as do Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, that the government has taken a wrong turn and that the position of women is worse than it was before. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to say on behalf of the Socialist Group that we support, and are going to vote in favour of, the report jointly produced by Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Seguro, which has been produced seriously and elegantly and in a spirit of not only Iberian but also European cooperation. I believe that that spirit of cooperation could be extended to other fields because I notice that, in this post-Nice debate which we have started, the illustrious leaders of the are criticising the proposals made by the leaders of my political family: Mr Jospin (Prime Minister of France) and Mr Schröder. I only have one thing to say: we impatiently await the contributions of Mr Aznar and Mr Berlusconi. We all remember (protests and applause) the contributions of Mr Berlusconi in this House in favour of Europe. Having said this, Mr President, I am not going to enter into a critical analysis of the Treaty, which has been the job of our two colleagues. I would like to address the President-in-Office of the Council because she has said some important things. Firstly, she has said that she has launched a virtual forum. This forum is already on the Internet; it is a forum and I am grateful to the President-in-Office of the Council that the European Parliament has finally entered the forum, in the latest edition. We could also seek formulae so that we can connect to our own debates. The forum now exists. It is a tribute to the Swedish Presidency that this forum is open and democratic in the best Swedish tradition. She has indicated that it might be appropriate to create a committee of wise men. I am in favour of the idea that experienced political leaders should not go on the dole. We could look for some political leaders to advise us. However, in any event, no forum can replace the convention, because – and I would like to remind you that it is an invention of the Council, not Parliament, at Cologne – it is a method by which we do not make recommendations but rather we debate the issues and make proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference. In this respect, I believe that we have to be clear: it is not only a request of the European Parliament at this point. If am not mistaken, after a lively debate in Stockholm, the COSAC last week expressed its support for the convention. This clearly means that the representatives of the European people, elected on both European and national levels, agree that this convention should exist, in order to produce something which we consider to be essential, Mr President – and with this I will end – that is, an open, public and transparent debate, which will allow us to create treaties which are constitutional and, above all, comprehensible to our co-citizens. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The two-fold approach of education and examinations for master craftsmen diplomas or certificates is prerequisite to future economic success. Mobility and life-long learning must go hand in hand with assuring a high standard of education for our young students and working people. - Report Cashman (A5-0259/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
There is much to commend in this resolution, especially in terms of sustainable development. I welcome the call for the EU to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which is an essential international agreement in terms of protecting our planet. I welcome the renewed commitment to reaching the UN target for development assistance and hope that, at last, this will be achieved as there is a desperate need for this. I also welcome the need expressed for the EU to prepare fully for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Why then did I abstain on the motion as a whole? I do not believe that developing a Common Security Policy, which seeks to link us closely to NATO, has any part in the sustainable development of the EU. Nor do I believe that we should be asking Ireland to negate its recent referendum and prepare for the ratification of the Nice Treaty. Such a call ignores the democratically expressed wishes of the people and does this House no credit.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I voted against budget lines B7-6312, Arndt 605 and Arndt 361. This funding for population and reproductive health care will be accessed to provide abortion in developing countries, according to the upcoming Sandbæk report. The European Union has no legal right to provide or promote abortion and it is unacceptable to use public funding for this purpose within the Member States, candidate countries or developing countries where it is unacceptable to communities. - Färm report (A5-0350/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for once again giving us the opportunity to talk about women. At a time when a woman who fights for human rights, and women’s rights in particular, has just been awarded the Nobel peace prize, at a time when serious discussions are taking place regarding a more coherent global development and finding solutions to conflicts, let us again take this opportunity, albeit very late in the day, to highlight the very specific situation of women. Every year thousands, even millions of females suffer violence in every possible form. How many silent voices are there behind the statistics, how many aspects are disguised or hidden behind the non-interference clause or the cultural heritage argument? In the European Union we say that human rights should come before any custom or social philosophy. However, when we are talking about international relations, which is the subject of this report, there is often a clash between two world views. Should we be content with acknowledging but not hearing what these women are asking for, either in their own countries or in seeking protection through the international law that we support? So how much scope do we have to state that we condemn these practices and that we are not being fooled? The instruments mentioned in the report are proof of the outstanding pragmatism of women in general, and in particular of Mrs Smet, who I would like to congratulate on her work. We must reaffirm that any violence against women is in itself sufficient grounds, sui generis, for granting the right to asylum and refugee status. In response to this discriminatory violence, we need to use the violence of economic sanctions, unless we have an order of priorities in which women have a much lower value than cooperation agreements or firm traditions with a very sad history. Let us stop talking and writing about this and try to be as pragmatic as women in general can be.

Political group: PSE
Very briefly, the principle of relative stability is not in question for the simple reason that there is no transfer of quotas between Member States. On the other hand, we are talking about a temporary suspension of quotas in order to force Member States to meet the objectives of the MAGPs. This would be further clarified by the approval of Amendment No 3 tabled by Mr Ford. As rapporteur, I propose that you vote in favour of this amendment. Secondly, the aim of paragraph 6 of my report is precisely to encourage the European Union to create an effective system of penalties. If we fail to create penalties forcing countries to meet the objectives of the MAGPs, then these MAGPs will not only serve no purpose but, more than this and much more seriously, they will act as a form of discrimination between those Member States which do comply and reduce their fleets and those which do not comply and are not penalised. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The EPLP has voted for the motion for resolution on the free movement of persons, but with an important reservation. The EPLP supports the Tampere conclusions that the EU must ensure fair treatment of third-country nationals who legally reside in its territory and recognise that there needs to be a resolution to the situation of Regulation 1408/71/EEC not covering third-country nationals. However, the EPLP does not support the view that the legal base should be Article 42 and 308. The EPLP supports the Council and a number of Member States who wish the legal base to remain Article 63. - Lucas Report (A5-0036/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, although as I am sure you know I am a friend of European regulations when they are necessary, and against a European bazaar for national special interests, I have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this House, which represents the citizens of Europe. The right of resale remains as controversial as ever. In the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the European art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. In my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to Germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. The galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. The auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of EUR 12 500 is no longer to apply. I think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. That has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, just how harmful tobacco is can be judged, for example, from the fact that people say that if tobacco had been discovered now it would definitely have been banned because it causes so many public health problems. It does seem strange that we appear to be finding excuses for how we might continue advertising at European level to make this product, as wretched as it is in terms of public health, more tempting for people. We are now in a situation where we have to pass a directive that is unsatisfactory, but we have already heard the history of this matter. It was unfortunate that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market got no further in this: we have had to accept a very unsatisfactory outcome as a compromise. On the other hand, this directive is being dealt with under the Hughes procedure with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, and the Commission proposal was unanimously supported by that committee, so we might say that, as a result, the majority strongly back the Commission proposal. These unfortunate decisions, which the Committee on Legal Affairs has arrived at, can certainly then be amended in the vote on Wednesday. As, however, we cannot be satisfied with this proposal, even though it is all we now have, it is vital that we should accept Amendment No 26 tabled by Heidi Hautala, which would make it possible to preserve legislation in those countries where it has advanced further.

Political group: PSE