GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, the two provisions we are debating today respond to both a conviction and an objective: the conviction that we can defeat terrorism and our objective to strengthen the Rule of Law, providing all the instruments necessary to achieve this. In a democracy, political ideas are put to the test in the voting booth, and not put forward by terrorists. I am sure that all my fellow Members are of this opinion. I would like to clearly point out what will be changed by these two initiatives when they are adopted by the Laeken European Council : firstly, Europe will cease to ‘show solidarity with’ and instead be ‘responsible for’. The solidarity of Europeans with Spanish democrats in their fight against ETA will give way to the responsibility of all European democrats to defeat terrorism. Secondly, and with regard to the European search and arrest warrant, agreements between governments will be replaced with recognition and cooperation between their various judicial systems. An injunction will have to be able to be executed without delay, whether it has been issued by a Spanish judge or a French judge, against an individual who is sought in one or other of the countries. To make my position clear, I feel there should be no more disgraceful spectacles such as the one that took place at Olano. As well as thinking about the future, however, I cannot help but think with a certain degree of bitterness that these two provisions have come far too late, for the victims. How different their lives would have been if we had done this earlier! If only this had been done ten years ago, I am sure that ETA would, by now, have been defeated, and that many of my close friends who have been murdered by ETA would still be here with us, still taking their children to school, giving lectures, writing articles for the press, administering justice, representing their voters. I would, therefore, ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to reflect upon this tomorrow before you vote. I would like you to consider that the consequences of this will not only be political, but will, more than anything, be of a human nature, and I would ask the Council to rise, in political terms, to this occasion, and not to miss this opportunity. There are those that think that politics is the art of the possible. My opinion is that the purpose of politics is to make what is necessary possible. I trust that the Fifteen will share this opinion. I assure you that the defeat of terrorism is possible, and, ladies and gentlemen, you do not realise just how necessary this is.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is a matter I should like to raise. On 19 December, just before Christmas, I was the victim of a robbery in the immediate vicinity of our Parliament in Brussels. I was in my car waiting at the traffic lights when my windscreens were smashed and everything was taken out of the car. I will spare you the details, but I have heard that raids of the same kind have occurred several times since then involving other cars, even last week. My question is: could the newly elected Quaestors catalogue the type of robberies that have taken place in the last year near the European Parliament building in Brussels and take tough action with the police so that the latter take measures, for I can assure you, to have to endure something like that is no laughing matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, right is wrong. If all individuals are not treated in the same way, if war crimes and crimes against humanity go unpunished, how can we credibly pass judgment on less serious violations of the law? It is of the utmost importance for a permanent International Criminal Court now to be set up specifically in The Hague, the judicial capital of the world. This court is one element in the development of our civilisation. It should naturally be universal. Asian and Arab countries, in particular, are still under-represented, and I urge all signatories to proceed to ratification. It is very poignant that the United States too should refuse to ratify the Treaty. It was mainly the Americans who proclaimed in Nuremberg that individuals have duties towards the international community which prevail over those towards their own State, and that this should become international law. Meanwhile, for the Americans, the same international criminal law apparently applies to everyone apart from themselves. A rare insight into the arrogance of power is provided by a bill that has already been adopted by the Senate and that boycotts the court and every country which participates in it. Another outrageous bill would even authorise the President of the United States to use violence to liberate people kept in prison by the court. If sufficient guarantees are built in to ensure a fair judicial process and competent judges, there is no reason at all why America should be fearful of this court. The Council and our Parliament should get this message across to our counterparts in America in a friendly, yet unambiguous manner. Also, as many countries as possible, spread across the different continents, should proceed to ratification in the short term. The court should not become too European. It can prove in practice that States that do not participate are in the wrong. Anyone who refuses to recognise the International Criminal Court commits an injustice and lags behind our civilisation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Harbour, for the cooperative and pragmatic way in which he has worked on the universal services directive. In particular, his efforts to achieve a consensus have led to the Socialist Group's amendments – both to strengthen the 'must carry' provisions and to give stronger rights of access to disabled users – being carried in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The fast pace of technological change in the telecoms sector means that legislation must keep up with the pace of developments. But it must reflect growing expectations of users and consumers for a minimum set of services at an affordable price, guaranteeing access for all. The telecoms revolution has created a rise in consumer expectations. It is our job to respond and ensure that our legislative framework in the EU can deliver competition and consumer benefits. Consumers, for example, have not benefited from the existence of multiple competitors in the mobile phone market. Tariffs have not fallen in line with lower costs of running networks, now prompting in the UK an Oftel inquiry and a European Commission investigation. This directive must ensure genuine universal access and extend to all users, especially those with special social needs, those on low incomes and those with disabilities. The disabled will be excluded from the opportunities if there are not sufficient guarantees of access across Europe to public payphones, directory services and electronic programme options. In my country alone, two million blind and partially-sighted people could benefit from this directive if the Council and the Commission accept our amendments. Finally, on 'must carry' provisions, we need to find a means to allow services and channels in the public interest to be carried on cable and satellite platforms. If we do not, then I fear the future of satellite television might be dominated by the TV culture of quiz shows featuring stripping housewives, squeezing out educational and public interest programmes. Let us be clear: Amendment No 26 does not promote a free ride for public broadcasters on conditional access services nor indeed on imposing or mandating this. The fact is that market conditions do not always provide 'must carry'. It is appropriate to allow Member States to intervene if and when it is appropriate to do so. I trust the Commission and the Council will see the merits of supporting this. We favour a quick deal but it is conditional on the Council and the Commission accepting our amendments, which are a genuine and committed attempt to ensure that the brave new world of electronic communications is genuinely universal.

Political group: PSE
High Representative, along with other Members of the House, we went to celebrate Europe Day in Jerusalem, to celebrate a day of peace. We met the Israeli and Palestinian political leaders as well as NGOs. Words cannot, of course, express the atrocity of the massacres, but I would prefer to pass on to you the message that they gave to us. If the European Union wishes to remain true to the values that it defends, it must urgently demand the withdrawal from the occupied territories and the recognition of Palestinian State, reaffirming the 1967 borders, which requires the breaking up of settlements, the boycotting of products from these settlements and sending an international peacekeeping force to guarantee the protection of the people. On Saturday 11 May, more than 70 000 Israeli citizens gathered in Tel Aviv to show their support for peace. This gathering shows us that we need to go further than humanitarian discussions and to start to take action. The European Parliament shouldered its responsibilities by adopting resolutions. These are not designed to give it a clear conscience and they must not be forgotten. It is now up to the Council, as it alone can give force and vigour to our resolution, to agree to implement them. As you know, the European citizens working on the ground form an effective force for peace. They have been a constant presence by willingly forming a human shield. I formally appeal to you to be worthy of these citizens: would the international conference not give us the opportunity to recognise the Palestinian State alongside the Israeli State? This recognition would give confidence to the Palestinians and could set in motion genuine reform of the institutions of the Palestinian Authority.

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, I am speaking here on behalf of my colleague, Mr Bradbourn, who was the rapporteur for our committee, though I was very much involved in drawing up the opinion. I should like to say first of all to Mrs Torres Marques that she has produced an extremely comprehensive report with a lot of good ideas in it. I would say to Mr Liikanen, whom I am pleased to see here in a different guise from when we normally engage in debate, that I read his proposal with great interest. I want to emphasise that the line taken by my committee in our opinion is that we are looking for areas where the Commission can add value. We are not looking for new Treaty competences. We are not looking for new layers of bureaucracy in an industry which, as Mrs Torres Marques has rightly pointed out, is characterised by the very large number of small- and medium- and owner-operated businesses. The last thing we want is lots of bureaucratic information collection and even ideas like new observatories. The Commission has a role in adding value, in promoting ideas about benchmarking and sharing information about standards, but industry players and local authorities must be engaged in that process. I emphasise that they have to add value to the process. Mr Liikanen's portfolio is a very broad one already. I do not want to see him diverting a lot of resources into something that is primarily a competence of Member States and should remain so. In that connection, I do not want to see us use the ideas about tourism – and certainly, as Mrs Torres Marques has said, it employs a lot of people – to call for centralising measures, for new tax centralising measures or for new measures that might engage regions directly instead of Member States. We should clearly be discussing tourism issues but we should be quite clear about where the responsibility lies. We should say to the Commission: add value, look for solutions but do not add to your Treaty competences.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the question tabled by Mr Napolitano on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, refers to a very real issue and I think Commissioner Barnier’s response and that of the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Moscovici, were very clear. That is, there is an error in the Italian version of the text resulting from an incorrect translation. Consequently, the description “less developed” is applied to the island regions as well as to the other regions and, according to Mr Barnier’s proposal, what is required here is the amendment of the Italian text of the Treaty, in accordance with the provisions of the Vienna Convention. On the other hand, I believe that we should welcome the information that Mr Barnier has just given us; he has proposed a study of the specific problems of the island regions, in accordance with Article 158 and Declaration No 30, appended to the Treaty of Amsterdam. I believe that this would actually be enough to solve the problem raised by the question by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with regard to Mr Medina Ortega’s intervention a few moments ago, which you responded to by saying that his interpretation was incorrect, I must tell you that your reply was not correct either. Please do not ask me to name any particular Member, but I guarantee that some of the 32 members who voted in favour of the request for a quorum are no longer here. Therefore, some of the 32 Members have violated the Rules of Procedure. *** Report by Mrs Thyssen (A5-0077/2000), on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the draft guidelines on vertical restraints [C5-0009/2000 – 2000/2003(COS)]

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my colleagues have already made many of the points that I wanted to raise in an extremely clear and precise way, and so I will not repeat them. I would, therefore, just like to ask myself – and you – some questions. I wonder, firstly, whether the European Union’s efforts to pursue political dialogue and the participation of the quartet will be strengthened or weakened by the genuine reluctance on the part of the Commission to ensure that the protocol on origin rules and the territorial clause in the EU-Israel Association Agreement are enforced correctly. I am raising this point as I believe that it is fundamental. We have been debating this issue for years and there is no doubt that progress has been made, yet we are, once again, facing a blatant violation of this agreement. There are enormous obstacles to the peace process which, in my opinion, are due, firstly, to the policy of the Israeli Government, which is continuing with its settlements, following a policy of annexation and erecting walls. These obstacles are also, however, the result of the increasing violations of fundamental principles and the rules of international humanitarian law in Israel and Palestine. I believe that we should not give aid that allows agreements concluded not to be enforced. I would also like to consider the reasons why Israel is violating the agreement, Article 2 of which calls upon Israel, and us, to respect it. We are responsible for ensuring that, on the basis of the agreement, our relations are founded on the respect for human rights and not on the violation of international humanitarian law. I believe that a politically appropriate, measured response from the Union to Israel’s persistence in issuing certificates of origin for products from the settlements should ensure that no product can continue to be given preferential treatment as an import into the European Union. If we give due weight to the statements of the Commission regarding preferential treatment of products imported from the settlements, then we see that Israel’s practice of issuing certificates of origin for these products is considered by the Commission to be a violation of the agreement. Nevertheless, this practice still continues. The agreement – the Commission has said so too – is not being enforced resolutely. I would like this issue of relations and legality to be addressed, because we need to end the situation of ‘anything goes’ that exists in Palestine and Israel. Israel needs to learn to enforce the agreements that it signs.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the European Commission is proposing an appropriation of EUR 17 billion, fully recognising the importance of research and technological innovation in Europe. Unfortunately, research projects today often do not achieve the hoped-for success which would allow them to compete at an international level, and the European Union does not hold enough attraction to lure back the top researchers who have chosen to work abroad. The new scheme should bring in some changes: firstly, concentrate financial aid on a restricted, specific number of priority subjects for Europe; secondly, invite researchers to collaborate more closely; and thirdly, increase the mobility of researchers by creating a working environment in Europe that is attractive to them. These priorities form the framework for the 42 amendments tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, many of which have been incorporated, for which I thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, which is competent in this matter. These amendments concern employment, health and safety at work, access to work for the disabled, small and medium-sized enterprises and European Community research centres. With regard to employment, we have seen an amendment adopted which seeks to extend research to the development of operating systems and computer hardware in Europe in order to increase employment and stop us from being so heavily dependent on the United States and Japan in this area. This is a key sector for the new economy and would entail considerable risks for the sake of economic and employment growth. Then we asked for action in the field of health and safety at work, in order to encourage access for the socially excluded and disadvantaged, such as people with disabilities. Research support for small and medium-sized enterprises has also been accepted with very favourable terms, it has gone up from 15 to 30 %, and the same may be said of support for JRCs, which are to receive EUR 725 million. In conclusion, Mr President, I must move in favour of approval, since science and research are there to serve the people, for that right to life that no one is entitled to jeopardise.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Intergovernmental Conference is destroying the Convention’s success. That was almost to be expected because this method of national and sectoral egotisms is in fact something quite different from the work of the Convention, which has tried to find the European interest. It is now very striking that the governments are starting to attack the European Parliament and its rights. The loss of the legislative council is the loss of a partner for this Parliament in making legislation. Law making will be weakened as a result. The reduction in this Parliament’s budgetary powers is an attack on the very legitimacy of parliaments. Parliaments were created to exercise democratic control over public finances, and anyone who disputes those rights, the European Parliament’s budgetary rights, is attacking democracy in the European Union, and not only the European Parliament but all our colleagues in the national parliaments, too, should make a stand against that. The sectoral councils actually have no part to play in the Intergovernmental Conference, and the Ecofin Council’s attempt is directed not only against the Convention but also against the Thessaloniki summit. In Thessaloniki it was said that the heads and the foreign ministers negotiate, not the sectoral councils, and I can only call on the Italian Presidency to resist these attempts. They should not allow it and should really pay no more attention to the sectoral councils than they do to political proposals made by the legal services. Technical proposals, yes, but I see political proposals being made here, even in the area of defence policy, for example to throw out the mutual assistance clause, to throw out structured cooperation. That is all a change in the substance. The Convention created a good atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Conference is spreading a bad atmosphere and we can do without that in such an important year as 2004. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The European Parliamentary Labour Party reiterates that if we want to pursue our policies of multilateralism then positive engagement with the United States is required, not simply criticism in areas where there is disagreement. In particular, pre-emptory withdrawal of troops from Iraq would simply further threaten the security of the Iraqi people. The solution can only lie in the transfer of political control, working with the support of the United Nations, in order to support the emergence of a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Iraq.

Political group: PSE
The basis for my question is Article 45 of the Schengen Agreement, which states that anyone who books into a hotel in another Schengen country must produce a means of identification and prove their citizenship, but the only document a Swedish citizen has which shows their citizenship is their passport. My question is whether there is a formal exemption from Article 45 for Sweden in the Schengen Convention, as there surely needs to be in such cases. My second question, if there is no such exemption, is whether it is the Union's authorities who ultimately decide which type of identity documentation is acceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my questions also relate to environmental policy. I would like to repeat the question from Mrs Frassoni on PVC and what has happened to the goals regarding PVC in this work programme, for they were included in both last year’s programme and that of the previous year, but they have now disappeared. This is exceedingly disturbing, as we are talking about an incredibly hazardous substance which we know exists in large quantities in our environment. In terms of waste, no fewer than four million tonnes of PVC waste are produced every year. Perhaps Commissioner Liikanen or Commissioner Wallström should answer the question of what has happened to the Commission’s goals on the issue of PVC. My second question relates to the structural funds, the common agricultural policy and EU-financed programmes and plans in general. During 2003-2004, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), will enter into force in the Member States. Unfortunately, SEA does not yet cover EU-financed plans and programmes, but the Commission has promised that this must happen, something for which Parliament has expressed its support. I now want to know whether it is the case that the Commission has started to set up an internal organisation to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to implement this type of impact assessment for EU-financed plans and programmes. My final question relates to Natura 2000. We are still waiting for a communication from the Commission, which has been delayed a number of times. Now it has been included in the programme, and I would therefore simply like to point out the importance of this communication actually being issued next year, preferably as soon as possible.

Political group: Verts-ALE