GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, the way the age structure of the population is developing everywhere in Europe means that today’s youth will really have to carry the burden of responsibility for tomorrow. For that reason it is only proper that issues of youth should be discussed at EU level. The quality of youth policy in the Member States can be improved through European cooperation. It is gratifying that the Commission should have tried to implement European governance in practice and is offering young people opportunities to influence the decisions that relate to them. The consultation process prior to the White Paper aroused high expectations among young people as to its content. These hopes, however, have perhaps not been entirely realised. It is not enough that young people are merely listened to. We have to look for workable solutions to the problems that young people feel are serious. Although the majority of young people in Europe are doing well, youth unemployment and exclusion have become permanent social phenomena. Closely linked to this is the fact that deprivation tends to pass from one generation to the next. The value of participation on the part of young people in decision-making that relates to them cannot be taken for granted. Bringing children up to prepare them for responsible citizenship is a big challenge for parents, teachers and trainers, and us politicians. We are looking at very fundamental questions of democracy when people are not interested in voting. For example, in Finland we are trying to show young people how to use their influence through youth councils, which are groups set up specifically for young people that strive to gain recognition for issues that are important to young people locally. We have also organised youth elections in which young people can express their views on state policy. The structures in place have not yet, in themselves, inspired any motivation to exercise influence. In a youth seminar I organised in Helsinki in April, one in which Mrs Gröner also took part, a certain young person wisely stated that participation must be seen both as a right and a learning process. Citizenship is learned and put into practice through action. The Commission’s White Paper is an excellent start to developments in youth policy. We also need concrete action and the necessary funds, just as the rapporteur, Mrs Gröner stressed. When considering funding we must also take into account the challenges of enlargement

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in reply to Mr Seppänen's point, I do not know many civil services in the world which are appointed only after a hearing by the Parliament and have to acquire the confidence of the Parliament to take office or which are dismissible as a college by Parliament. That is one of the important features of the situation as it obtains at the moment. As Mr Prodi has said, what we are looking for is a supranational democracy in Europe and that will be, in important ways, a democracy sui generis, not exactly like that of any pre-existing state or society. I welcome a lot of what he has said today about the way the Commission should take office and hold office. This is an attempt to retain the kind of balance between the three institutions which ought to characterise Europe and which does not at the moment in anything like the same way characterise many of our Member States, where the government has become the controller of the legislature of the parliament rather than the other way around. That is a good feature of his proposals. Although Mr Hänsch has pointed very accurately to some difficulties and potential contradictions that will mean that these proposals have to be more fully thought through to deal with the question, what about the risks of deadlock in the system which you are suggesting? Another point that picks up what Mr Poettering said and which nobody else has spoken of is that a European democracy must be a democracy at many levels. One of the great disappointments of the Convention so far has been the tiny attention it has given to those levels of democracy which exist within and below the level of the Member State. If we do not take account, adequately and properly, of substantial constitutional regions with legislative powers - the internal nations of the Member States - then this Union will not work as a successful democracy. Mr Napoletano has prepared a report today to the Constitutional Affairs Committee of this Parliament. We have amended it in committee and we believe that we have strengthened it. He is not fully happy with all that we have reached there but I hope that the Commission and the Convention are going to listen to this because if they do not also attend to this vital level of democracy in Europe all will fail. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I do not need at this present moment to say anything more about whether the motion from the Group of the European Liberals and Democrats should stand, or whether we are opposed to it. As Mr Barón Crespo has already expressed his opposition to the deletion of Chechnya from the agenda, I will not speak further on the subject. I am very much in favour of our also discussing Chechnya. Speaking on behalf of my group, though, I wish to associate myself with Mr Barón Crespo's proposal that we should – in view of the Liberals' inability to gain a majority on the subject – mandate the President to issue a statement in which, without risking our position being misunderstood, and without the statement being tinged with any sort of anti-Americanism, we express our opposition to capital punishment. Whilst being friendly towards America, we very definitely oppose the death penalty. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, industry complains about regulation and interference from Brussels. I can hardly think of legislation more likely to cause concern to some manufacturers than that which indicates in such detail how they will make their products and what minimum standards of energy they must achieve, with lots of detailed specifications still to come, appliance-by-appliance, determined by the comitology procedure and very much out of the public gaze. How do we justify interference in the private market on such a scale – interference and the setting of standards that go far beyond health and safety requirements? I believe that the potential benefits of energy-saving, of making more efficient products and of reducing carbon dioxide emissions speak for themselves. I am concerned that in an attempt to reconcile the different requirements of Member States – between hot countries and cold countries – the Commission may come up with compromises that set standards well below the best that can be achieved. I urge the Commission to be ambitious. This is a positive move. In selling it to citizens and consumers alike, there is a simple message: by cutting energy use we can help them save money and we can all contribute to do our bit to save the planet.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the reason why I abstained is that I regret that our amendment relating to our Judaeo-Christian heritage was not adopted. Not even a Marxist history teacher can deny that Europe’s roots are both Christian and Jewish; without them Marx and Marxism would not have existed, and if Europe turns away from God, Christianity and Judaism, it is cutting itself off from its roots, only to be swamped by materialism and to collapse. The second point I want to make in this connection is that it is an illusion to believe that this Treaty can be put under glass and can never again be amended. Twenty-five governments are not going to meet together just to do nothing; they will work on the Treaty, and we hope that they will improve it. It is to be hoped that they will include in the preamble reference to our Judaeo-Christian roots and also make a number of improvements in the institutional sphere, such as having one Commissioner per Member State, which I too regard as essential. While we do not want the package to be completely unwrapped, there are some definite improvements that the governments should carry out in October.

Political group: PPE-DE
The text before you, after years of negotiations seeking to define the maximum limits for weekly working hours, is symbolic in more ways than one of the ambiguities and inadequacies of European social policy. Firstly, as regards the very principle of a European social policy, the Treaty of Maastricht restricts this to minimum social standards, and only on condition that they do not “hold back small- and medium-sized undertakings”. These restrictions are no longer acceptable today. That, then, is one urgent question to be raised for the forthcoming revision of the Treaty. Ambiguities and inadequacies are, however, just as evident in the proposal before us. Are we sufficiently aware that, in 1994, when the Member States came to an agreement on the maximum 48-hour working week, they excluded several million workers, such as transport workers, offshore oil rig workers or junior doctors in training? Mrs Smet’s proposal extends the general rule of 48 hours to some of these sectors. It still does not, however, settle the matter of long-distance road haulage workers and puts forward a frankly ridiculous timescale for implementing the directive with regard to junior doctors! The position of these doctors in training is similar in many countries: working weeks of 70 and 80 hours in conditions that are occasionally disgraceful and sometimes dangerous to patients. The recent strike by junior doctors in France showed that such a situation was not acceptable, either for the doctors, the patients or the public health service. But, even though, last November, the European Parliament proposed almost unanimously that the 48-hour rule should come into force within four years, it is now suggested that we alter our position radically. We should adopt the joint proposal of the ministers and the parliamentary delegation allowing Member States up to twelve years (!) before they apply the 48-hour week directive to doctors in training. Please think about what this means exactly. The first doctors in training to benefit from these conditions have just started secondary school! I do not know of a single other area – the euro, the free movement of persons, goods or capital – where a timescale of this order is tolerated. In such circumstances, how can we expect the European Union’s social policy to be taken seriously? Especially as the proposal divides this twelve year period into several distinct periods, each with their own rules for the maximum working week: - until 2004 there will be no change, there will be no restrictions on working hours; - between 2004 and 2007 the maximum working week will be 58 hours; - between 2007 and 2009 it will be 56 hours; - between 2009 and 2012 it will be 52 hours. In adopting this text we are sending out a worrying message. This is the first directive on social matters to be adopted since the Lisbon Summit on employment. I would like to express the hope that the Commission, Parliament and the Council will, at last, take European social policy more seriously. Social Europe will not make progress, nor will it convince our countries’ citizens with proposals such as this. - Roth-Berendt report (A5-0117/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of the , I am pleased to express our support and favourable position with regard to the report presented by Mr Huhne, concerning the 1998 annual report of the European Central Bank. First of all, we must congratulate ourselves on the process of introducing the euro. It is now a complete reality which is operating with total normality on all the economic levels envisaged – in the Member States, in the European Union, on an international level. The good leadership and management of the European Central Bank has undoubtedly contributed to this normality and we should congratulate it and its President since, during the early months of the establishment of the euro, when the initial approaches were adopted, they had to overcome – and they did it skilfully – certain adverse circumstances at moments which were clearly delicate at an internal as well as an international level. At that time – and I must insist on this – the European Central Bank displayed skill, good leadership and management and the ability to maintain the principles of independence. This very solidity, which has been demonstrated in so few months, should allow us to be braver, more decisive in some areas which have already been mentioned, which are in Mr Huhne’s report and which I would like to insist on. One of them is clearly the issue of transparency in some areas that the President of the Central Bank himself has already mentioned. The publication of the forecasts, the possibility of having access to the minutes of meetings and a global report on the economic progress of the Member States are elements which will contribute – as the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, by means of the intervention of its President, Mrs Randzio-Plath, has demonstrated, and as mentioned in Mr Huhne’s report – to the consolidation of the level of internal and international acceptance and, of course, transparency, not only with regard to public opinion but also with regard to the experts in monetary affairs. Let me end by insisting on the specific position of the which calls for, after the transitional period of two years, the publication of votes, the various positions taken in the meetings of the Executive Board and the macroeconomic models, which I believe would allow more convincing and accurate forecasts to be made by those whose operations relate to the European Central Bank.

Political group: ELDR
This report, like many others in the last few months, raises some serious questions about the ‘sustainable development’ of fishing, about depleted fish stocks and bans on the fishing of this or that species in Community waters, about catch quotas or minimum fish sizes which have to be adhered to by fishermen in order to protect young fish, about fish populations etc. Yet there is one question which nobody is asking. How many of the fish that you claim to be saving will die in the next ‘Prestige’ oil-tanker disaster? How many others, day after day, are dying as a result of illegal emissions from the unseaworthy old tubs chartered by the big oil companies? Of course the authorities announce major decisions, such as prohibiting the use of single-hull vessels ... and then they give the oil companies ten years to comply! They have ten years in which to carry on causing devastation along the coasts of Spain, France and elsewhere, and causing the deaths of an untold number of species of marine wildlife. In order to save those species, and not forgetting those who earn their livelihood from fishing, the small-scale fishermen that you constantly harass when you are not driving them to ruin (by seeking to destroy part of the European fishing fleet, for example), why not start by putting your own rules into practice, such as the rules introduced after the ‘Erika’ disaster? (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I want to say that I think today's resolution on Iraq is very important because it reaffirms that we want to go down the United Nations route. It is a pity that we could not get a big majority in this House to send a clear signal on behalf of the whole Parliament. But I wanted to focus on the Middle East. We did, in an amendment, stress the importance of the Middle East peace process to getting a solution across the whole of the Middle East and peace across the region. It is regrettable again that we did that in an amendment because without a peace process, we will never see an end to the serious disruption in the Middle East. We in this House should push the Israelis and the Palestinians to get back to the negotiating table and push the United States to take an active part in making sure there is a Palestinian state created and that there is a long-term solution in the Middle East. We must not forget this while we are talking about the crisis in Iraq. We must not lose sight of it because otherwise we will never have peace in the long-term.

Political group: PSE
I would like to talk about the Geneva Accord and tell you that, like Jimmy Carter and Nelson Mandela, both former Presidents and winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, the European Parliament must welcome and support the initiative launched by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abbed Rabbo, who proposed a peace plan between Israelis and Palestinians on Monday, 1 December in Geneva. I believe that this is a courageous and symbolic act that highlights and reflects the hope of the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians of living in a world of peace and mutual solidarity. As Kofi Annan said, this plan does not take the place of the UN proposals. Similarly, it is not for us to provide an exhaustive, line-by-line commentary on everything that it proposes. The key element has been retained, namely the creation of a Palestinian state and the rejection of all forms of violence, especially suicide attacks. We must support a strong signal at a time when certain people in both camps are virulently opposed to this peace plan. They must be provided with a genuine lesson in peace and forced to move beyond hate in order to live together. I regret that the Council is not present. The urgency is all the more evident as the Iraqi crisis is only serving to amplify the problem. I think that it is time to offer a generation of Palestinians and Israelis a genuine future, and a generation across the world the capacity the politicians have of ensuring that they can all live together with greater success.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, increased levels of ozone and UV radiation have become risk factors throughout the world in which we live. I agree with the rapporteur that the effects of this are now clearly visible. Preserving the ozone layer is one of the main aims of our environment policy. We are all responsible for preventing damage to mankind and animals as well as to the entire ecosystem. That is why substances which destroy the ozone layer need to be replaced with alternative substances as quickly as possible. However, realistic transitional periods need to be set for switching to alternative substances. I wish to stress the word 'realistic'. Where it is clear that alternative substances are available which do the same job, the procedure needs to be carried out within the period prescribed. However, there are exceptions too and we also need to have a clear picture when we address these. In the chemical industry certain refrigeration equipment is indispensable for processes of chemical manufacturing. These refrigeration units are self-contained cooling systems and use a coolant for which no alternative is available at the present time. The size and complexity of self-contained cooling systems also make it necessary to grant an exemption. That is why I have tabled Amendment No 30 to the report, and I would ask for this to be taken into consideration. These cooling systems – I should like to point out once more – are self-contained systems and the coolant does not penetrate into the atmosphere.

Political group: PPE-DE
The representative of the Council’s response is ambiguous and somewhat schizophrenic in nature. On the one hand, he says that we need to implement the criteria but, on the other hand, he says things are running smoothly in Turkey and so we can proceed. This is clear to us all. Nevertheless, I would like to take the discussion a little further. At one point, he referred to a number of things Turkey must still do. “there is still much scope for improvement with regard to Turkey”, the Minister said. How much scope for improvement is there in Turkey? Is Turkey really ready to be granted applicant status on the basis of what it has done today and the declarations it has made? As regards fundamental issues such as the Greek-Turkish dispute over the Aegean Sea, should the criteria not be for Turkey to recognise the opinions of other countries, but for it to respect international law, to refrain from using violence or threatening to use violence and to refer any disputes it may have to the International Court in The Hague.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, since the coming into force of the novel food directive, the European Commission too has made a bit of a hash of things, to put it mildly. This is how we would put it informally. The European food industry is partly to blame for this because they were not prepared to make any concessions in the past. Mr President, the argument which has led the Commission today to include the 1% level here in this implementation was the fact that that which was held impossible in the past, namely identification and detection under the one percent threshold as well, is now possible. Mr President, because measuring methods are available. This means that in fact, anything can be detected at present. However, the regulation which is now in place means that we will soon have four types of food. Firstly, GMO-labelled food; secondly, food which is not supposed to contain any GMOs; thirdly, the category with the maximum 1% tolerance level and fourthly, all the supermarket chains which say that they can guarantee 0.1% although with the best will in the world they could not even guarantee this 0.1% because even in the identity preserved-chain foods will always contain more than 0.1% of GMOs. Mr President, this legislation shows up two deficiencies. Firstly, regulations are not just in place for maize and soya. I wonder when the rest will surface. Secondly, as Mr Sterckx has already mentioned, the term ‘contamination’ will need to be replaced by ‘presence’. Mr President, I would also like to mention another issue. Whatever will we be faced with next? At present, we are only dealing with food available to the consumer. But if, for example, I consider the foodstuffs or the food for our livestock, then we would need to refer to this novel feed directive and I would also mention the comments made by Mrs Breyer. Mr President, it would thus mean that if you know that all the proteins originate from abroad, say from South America, that you will soon also need to label absolutely everything with GMO identification within the framework of this novel food directive. Mr President, I wonder if we have to put up with this Dancing Procession of Echternach for much longer?

Political group: PPE-DE