GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President-in-Office, I really appreciate the difficult position you are in, having to give a reply on this acute problem, a reply on which we insist and which we demand from the European Union, from the Council, when it takes initiatives on other matters. On this particular issue, we are fully aware of the inhumane treatment of these people, which violates international law and human rights. What have these people done, Mr President-in-Office? They were sentenced as criminals because they tried to prevent criminal terrorist organisations paid by the USA to work against Cuba and the murder of its leaders, including Fidel Castro himself. This incident clearly proves how hypocritical and selective everything said by the USA and the European Union about combating terrorism is. As long as the European Union does not say a word about the release of these patriotic fighters for democracy, it is aligning itself fully and participating in the strategy against Cuba, which is a beacon for the peoples in the area. I ask you, Mr President-in-Office, how does the European Union feel when, on the one hand, it talks about combating terrorism and, on the other hand, it is basically becoming the accomplice of the USA in the measures which they are taking against anti-terrorist fighters?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like, very briefly, to say something about the President-in-Office of the Council’s statements on foreign policy and also on the outcome from the Council. One could hardly expect the Council to do other than give attention to the situation in the Middle East and lament the way in which this has deteriorated, which it has done, also calling on both sides to renounce violence and enjoining a policy of moderation upon them. Today, Mr President of the Council, I would like to call upon you to do everything you possibly can, whether through official or unofficial channels, to give real support to all the peace initiatives, whether they be Palestinian or Israeli in origin. Among other things, I am referring here to what are termed the Geneva Accords, a splendid initiative by people who really have been involved for years with the whole complex process. Let me make an exception here, and quote from an author – Amos Oz, an Israel writer who has this to say in a commentary on these Geneva Accords: ‘Ever since the Six Day War, we are as close to the Palestinians as a jailer is to the prisoner handcuffed to him. A jailer cuffing his wrist to that of a prisoner for an hour or two is a matter of routine. A jailer though who cuffs himself to his prisoner for thirty-six long years is himself no longer a free man. The occupation has also robbed us of freedom.’ These words, I think, clearly express the need for the European Union, too, to contribute something towards putting a stop to this state of non-freedom, which this situation has caused to prevail in Israel itself, and the fact that the Geneva Accords provide us with a good example. The last few days, though, have also shown that the conflict in Palestine and the situation in Iraq are even more closely connected than we, in this House, had repeatedly claimed them to be. Although, Mr President of the Council, there is at present rejoicing at the unanimous adoption of the United Nations resolution, we must not abandon the objectives that this House has always pursued in relation to Iraq policy: a strong role for the United Nations and a progressive but speedy and clearly-defined transfer of power from the Americans, from the armed forces, to the Iraqis. Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, and it must be made apparent, unambiguously and relatively quickly, that the European Union wants to implement this principle and put it into practice. I am not very happy about the way in which the agreement with Iran came about. I would have preferred it if it had been reached by Mr Frattini, the President of the Foreign Affairs Council, in tandem with Mr Solana, the High Representative. We should, though, be glad that the three European foreign ministers have managed to come to an agreement with Iran. Agreements can be reached without war, they can be reached by peaceful means, they can be reached by negotiating with countries that put up resistance, and we should rejoice that this important agreement with Iran now appears to have been concluded. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my request does not concern the electronic voting system. Speaking on behalf of my group, what I am, in fact, interested in is being able to vote at 12.30 p.m. and to have the opportunity to reach political agreements later.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to address the mover of the motion, Mr Duff, since this is still, after all, a question on a point of order which is to be debated in this House. Mr Duff, yesterday a vote was taken in the House on the Buitenweg report, as a result of which, the Karamanou and Sörensen reports have to be put to the vote this morning. This is also the reason why Mrs Buitenweg, who is otherwise requesting a quorum on this, is nobly expressing her reservation because she knows that voting on these reports this morning is the fair thing to do. In this respect, Mr Duff’s request might have been overlooked among the large number of requests made. He has not been given any information, which explains why he has made this request now. I would therefore urge Andrew to withdraw his request, since Mrs Buitenweg and others want a vote to be taken on the Sörensen and Karamanou reports this morning. I would certainly suggest that Mrs Buitenweg and others refrain from making a big fuss about it this morning in order to avoid embarrassing scenes. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this was the first time I had taken part in one of these delegations. I found it fascinating, but also frustrating. As has been said, this 8th Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention in New Delhi was intended to be a transitional one – more a matter of keeping the momentum going on the climate change debate than making headline political decisions. I concur with what colleagues have said and also express my frustration with the exclusion of the parliamentary delegation from the daily coordination meetings. As a result, the Commission ended the last day trying to exclude us from the press conference, albeit very politely and diplomatically. When we parliamentarians were briefed that morning, we indicated our frustration with the weakness of the draft declaration. The Commission did not want us to express that view at a press conference when it was taking what it thought was a more diplomatic line. These differences would not arise if we were part of the coordination meeting and on the inside. The Commission was very good to us in that it gave us briefings outside the loop, but we need to be inside the loop if we are to be involved and if we are to be described as 'members as participants in the European Community delegation'. The Council and the Commission were on one side and Parliament on the other. The draft declaration itself was rather weak and disappointing. The title was changed from 'The Declaration on Climate Change' to 'Declaration on Climate Change and Sustainability'. That is a precedent we have to be careful of. It is very hard to talk about these issues, be objective and keep the focus on climate change if it is suggested that sustainable development is not included. It is a sort of 'hit-me-with-a-child-in-my-arms' argument, i.e. how can you justify what you are saying if you do not include sustainable development? The Americans and others used the serious issue of sustainable development to divert focus from climate change and from the Kyoto Protocol requirements in general. It was a fascinating exercise. I would like to thank the leader of our delegation, Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo, and all colleagues for making it that.

Political group: PPE-DE
For reasons of principle as well as for practical reasons, I felt bound to vote against the amendments to the text proposed by the Commission. The smooth functioning of economic and monetary union does not necessarily require the harmonisation of VAT rates. In the United States, a perfect example of economic and monetary union, there are considerable differences in taxation between the various states. In practice, Amendments Nos 2 and 3 will have the effect of harmonising VAT rates upwards. We have only talked about the length of time during which the minimum standard rate is to be applied. The maximum rate has not even been mentioned. In the interest of price stability and in the interest of protecting the consumer’s buying power, we must take a step in the other direction: in other words, a minimum rate of 15% should be maintained for an indefinite period of time, matched by a voluntary and gradual reduction of the higher rates. - Gill report (A5-0390/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Committee on Budgets’ opinion on the DAPHNE II Programme is primarily rather technical in scope, and of course this technical side is very important. How much in terms of funding should be allocated to the programme for combating violence against children, young people and women? As Mrs Gröner stated, there has been a lot of interest in seeking funds from the previous PHNE Programme, and there were far more high-quality projects than there was money for. The programme has been implemented well and the funds used efficiently and, given the wealth of interest, there are clearly sound reasons for increasing the budget for DAPHNE, and also by an amount larger than the general budget increase we normally give in connection with enlargement. It is, however, no secret that the multi-annual budgets for this type of policy – an internal policy – has a very low ceiling. There is not a lot of extra money to give away. We must prioritise, and the Committee on Budgets has therefore been unable to give its support for a budget for PHNE of EUR 65 million. We have instead proposed that we stick to the budget framework of EUR 49.2 million proposed by the Commission. I can see that, in its report, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities has arrived at a budget of EUR 50 million. It bears quite a lot of resemblance to the Committee on Budgets’ proposal, and it is an amount I would assess as defensible from a budgeting point of view. I should also like to say how very pleased the Committee on Budgets is that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities has adopted our proposal that, after 2006, the commitment appropriations for PHNE II be dependent upon an agreement with the budgetary authorities. We shall, of course, only in the end be able to say how the budget for DAPHNE II will look after 2006 once the next multi-annual agreements and financial perspectives for the EU’s budget have been established, and it is of course a traditional proposal we have. Overall, then, I wish to say that we in the Committee on Budgets are able to support the report as it stands, but we cannot support the amendment designed to increase the budget to EUR 65 million.

Political group: ELDR
The European Parliament report adopts the Commission’s proposals on the application of the Stability Pact, with economic policy guidelines for an even stricter anti-employment package. It describes continuing wage restraint and greater flexibility on the labour markets as positive factors while, at the same time, recommending stricter measures for workers due to the slowdown and lack of vigour in the European economy and the downward revision in the rate of growth in the ΕU from the original estimate of 3% to an average of 2.7% in 2001. The Commission considers that the process of promoting more flexible forms of work should be encouraged and that efforts should continue to relax the existing restrictive legal framework on the protection of work even more, i.e. in order to allow more ‘economic’ uncontrolled mass redundancies. Large companies have already applied this measure and made huge redundancies on the pretext of the slowdown in the rate of growth of the economy and have restructured production and staff, with the result that over 250 000 redundancies have been announced in recent weeks. With acute signs of a recession in the United States, the wave of redundancies will increase as companies endeavour to maintain high profit margins by cutting staff. This is the policy of the EU, which has given the go-ahead for mass redundancies in order to protect the plutocracy's profits. Which is why any reference by the EU to its supposed interest in the workers and in combating unemployment is mere Pharisaism and hypocrisy The report also recommends accelerating the radical shake-up of the existing insurance and pension system and reviewing this during 2001 so as to deal with the “problems arising from the ageing population”. It also proposes speeding up the rate of privatisation, specifically quoting the liberalisation of the telecommunications sector as a good example, which should be pursued in the energy, post, airport, railway and sea transport sectors, as agreed. Clearly, even more difficult and bleak times are ahead for the workers. Social insurance will be linked to wages, output and the purchasing power of salaries. Part-time work is becoming the norm and, combined with partial retirement and the high cost of private social care and the commercialisation of the pension, health and welfare systems, is pushing the whole of the working class into unemployment, poverty, insecurity and social exclusion. The measures designed for the workers are tantamount to a guaranteed level of poverty. Prosperity is, of course, reserved for big business, which these measures strengthen still further. The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece are voting against this report, which promises even greater poverty for the workers and even more mega-profits for big business and which seeks to reverse everything the workers have achieved. The workers, who are speaking out and demonstrating against these barbaric, inhumane policies in huge mass rallies and strikes in the various countries of Europe, including Greece, will try to ward off the impending storm and we shall be by their side in the fight.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am sorry to have to contradict you afterwards. I am of completely the opposite opinion. Rule 112 speaks quite clearly of a debate on a proposal on which the opinion of the Parliament is required. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. It is not a matter of the interinstitutional agreement. That is not the subject of the Napolitano amendment. It is rather an amendment to the Rules of Procedure and it is quite clear that it does not formally come under Rule 112. It is therefore politically so important because the Rules of Procedure of this House should be protected from being amended ad hoc and according to individual situations. That is a safeguard of the Rules of Procedure, that it does not fall under Rule 112. It is the case in all national parliaments that Rules of Procedure cannot just be amended according to the mood of the moment. The procedure that leads to this debate and to this decision – in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well – shows a large number of infringements of the Rules of Procedure. Proposals were declared inadmissible that were clearly admissible under the Rules of Procedure. It was omitted to set deadlines for proposals for amendment. The large groups have tried to bring about this proposal through the repeated deliberate disregard of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore very surprised because the EPP started a discussion with the refusal of the qualified majority on the last vote in this House, which showed many Members that in this interinstitutional agreement there is associated damage to the rights of Parliament, serious damage to the independent mandate and a limitation of the constitutional role of this House The EPP was quite justified in sending this report back to the Committee again. It is therefore incomprehensible that now, in view of the serious constitutional problems that this report raises, a course of action is chosen that is not covered by the Rules of Procedure. (Applause) Nobody in this House – to make it clear once and for all – would speak out against expanding the efforts to combat fraud and on the responsibility of OLAF for this House. But the fact that the Council has gone too far and has undermined the position of Parliament and openly questioned the independent mandate, the fact that investigations can be carried out against independent Members of this House, because of undetermined legal notions – serious incidents –, because of a disciplinary law that does not exist, has rightly alarmed this house. (Applause) I would ask you to note, Madam President, that this debate cannot now be concluded forcibly and by breaching the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I welcome the Commission communication. I confess that I was initially somewhat surprised that this paper bracketed together countries like Libya and Belarus in a single communication. These two countries, like the other countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean or in eastern and south-eastern Europe, have precious little in common apart from their relative geographical proximity to the European Union. That is why I am pleased that each country is to be dealt with individually. The Presidency has made an announcement to that effect and the Commissioner talked about action plans. As something has therefore been said about practically all our neighbours, for the sake of completeness a sentence could have been added about Norway and Switzerland, as an example, at least in the case of Norway, of just what can be done without signing up to actual membership. I find wording such as the heading ‘Different countries, common interests’ somewhat unfocussed. Their agendas really are too different. It has been said that there are countries that have membership prospects and others that do not. If we want to, we can demand a lot more from neighbours who also belong to the Council of Europe: for example, in return for granting trade preferences, we can make demands in the area of human rights. However, we should not make offers that we cannot honour. We cannot offer all neighbouring states the four freedoms as the Commission does in Section 3 of its communication, and I quote: ‘the prospect of a stake in the EU’s Internal Market and further integration and liberalisation to promote the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital’. Fortunately, the Commissioner did not repeat that quotation from the communication as such. However, the communication almost gives the impression that we are offering an ‘à la carte’ Europe. I have to say that I cannot identify any political consensus for granting North Africa and Russia, for example, freedom of movement in any foreseeable political future. I therefore call on the Commission to draw up pragmatic and realistic action plans that neither raise false hopes nor over-commit the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
As a Swedish Christian Democrat, I have voted against this report. All initiatives aimed at reforming the common agricultural policy ought to be supported, including this modest proposal from the Commission for a moderate reduction in sugar quotas. We believe that the EU must open its agricultural sector to the developing world. The position of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is therefore misleading in as much as it defends a continuation of the present EU policy based upon subsidies and tariff barriers against surrounding countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank Commissioner Kinnock for his detailed reply. I would like to encourage him further. He is absolutely right that we should look at the best practices available. We in this House must remind ourselves that we cannot be selective in the application of principle. We look towards enlargement and encourage good practice, yet here in our institutions we still continue to discriminate. But I welcome the signs of change. I hope that these will have the full support of this House and that we will begin to end the 'ping pong' game that we play with the human rights and civil liberties of ordinary men and women. For that is exactly what lesbians and gay men are. They are ordinary men and women made extraordinary by society's preoccupation with their sex lives. Let me also say on a personal matter that in my own Member State, my partner of 18 years, cannot possibly inherit my pension. That is discrimination. We must end it both within and outside the institutions. Finally, I should like to raise one very important issue, namely recognition by an EU Member State of a legal document. Such a legal document is certainly not available in the United Kingdom. I look forward to Commissioner Kinnock's replies.

Political group: PSE
There is a great deal of concern in Galicia, Commissioner. This is an Objective 1 region affected by BSE where a model plan to combat the disease is being strictly implemented. Commissioner, I should like to know whether, under the measures you referred to, direct aid to farmers is already being provided or will soon be. In particular, since I have been asked to query this, have any specific measures been authorised or are there plans to do so concerning heifers aged between 9 and 24 months? Also, are there plans to adjust the special premium for the slaughter of steers, changing the criterion from age to weight: 185 kilos? These are the requests I have received and they would be useful in the context of combating this disease.

Political group: PPE-DE