GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
With both the previous question and this question, the President-in-Office of the Council has, I do not know why, or rather I do know why but I would rather not say, avoided voicing the slightest criticism of the United States. As you will have noticed, strong protests have been voiced here in Parliament against the decision by the United States to cancel the ΑΒΜ Treaty; we have all said that this will provoke a new round, a new arms race and a huge risk, a huge threat to world peace. The question is: will the Council intervene to try and make the United States reverse its decision to put missiles in space, with all the dangers that implies? You did exactly the same earlier. You said about the bases, ‘I don’t know, it wasn’t in the question’. You are Greek! Souda is in Greece! An answer, for pity’s sake, Mr President-in-Office!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to praise the Portuguese Presidency for being so dynamic in its preparations for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. This is especially good news after the rather disappointing outcome of the European Summit in Helsinki. My Group is of the opinion that the agenda of this IGC should be extended further so that the European Union is actually able to operate effectively with over 20 Member States in future. This is why we are pleased that the presidency wants to set up five working parties which will look into the major bottlenecks. But, as many have already highlighted, the agenda with just the three leftovers from Amsterdam is far too light-weight. My Group also demands that the European Parliament be a full partner in the negotiation process, as fervently argued by Mrs Fontaine and others in the past. In the next couple of weeks, the Presidency will be visiting all the capitals of our EU Member States. We demand that, during its whistle-stop tour, the Portuguese Presidency widens the agenda of the IGC according to the recommendation of the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report. I am of the opinion that the Portuguese Presidency, after this trip, should come and report on the outcome of these discussions during the February part-session in Strasbourg. I would remind the presidency that Article 48 of the EU Treaty stipulates that the IGC cannot start before the European Parliament has issued its opinion. I do not rule out that the European Parliament will not issue this opinion until it has become clear how the European Parliament will be more involved in the negotiations and once the agenda has been widened. Mr President, the topic which will be tabled in March is of key importance, but let us not restrict it to the democratisation of the information society. Let us, above all, look at where America performs better than the European Union and, in this sphere, adopt best practices from the United States.

Political group: PPE-DE
I can only support and uphold the general objective of the five-year Erasmus World programme (2004-2008), which seeks to help develop high-quality education in Europe through closer cooperation with third countries. We must prepare the citizens of Europe and partner third countries to live and work in a society where knowledge is an imperative, strengthen the attraction of Europe as a centre of excellence for higher education and, lastly, increase mutual understanding between peoples and cultures through exchanges and structural cooperation. Establishing this Europe of education that is both attractive and open to the world nevertheless calls for budgets equal to the task: this programme, which is the bearer of great prospects must not be the bearer of false hopes because it is allocated insufficient funding. In other words, the budgetary outlay must be worthy of the programme which we want to see implemented, a programme which is truly wide-ranging, a programme which can benefit a sizeable number of students and thereby attain the ambitious objectives in order to bring about significant intercultural dialogue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we were talking a short while ago about the death penalty, and Iran is one of the countries in which many death sentences, especially by means of stoning, are pronounced. Certainly, there has been a moratorium on stonings, but everyone knows of course that, in the autumn of 2002, there was a series of large-scale demonstrations in Iran in favour of human rights and democracy and against executions and stonings. In particular, there were a number of students at the head of the demonstrations and, if I raise the issue now, it is because four of these students were sentenced at a court in Shiraz to have their arms and legs cut off. They are all under 25 years of age. None have criminal records. This is one more example of the mediaeval methods used by Iran. I would ask you to approach the Iranian Government and, if appropriate, break off the critical dialogue until such methods are no longer used. This is a matter of great urgency.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, having rightly expressed our sympathy and solidarity with the people who have been hard hit, especially in the département of the Somme in France, we should think about the numerous floods which have occurred not just in France, but also in Portugal, Spain and elsewhere, and about the fact that other countries may yet be affected. First there is the question of urgency; the previous speaker reminded us of the need to take into consideration the financial cost of the crisis in people’s lives. However, we also urgently need to take the measures needed to prevent the disaster caused by exceptional climatic conditions in France from turning into a crisis which permanently affects the families and enterprises in question. I obviously welcome the financial efforts already proposed and I hope that Europe will not be absent from them. We also need to strengthen our means of detection, so that we can react rapidly, and develop the best possible technologies, so that we have means of intervention which can be mobilised at once in any country of Europe. We have seen how far rapid reaction facilities are lacking. Parliament therefore looks forward to receiving the text on European civil defence, which could form the basis for transnational monitoring and solidarity. However, most importantly, we need to study the issue in depth. These disasters remind us, not that we need reminding, of just how important it is to review our regional planning policies, which will take a great deal of courage, and to implement the commitments made in Kyoto. Europe should not relax in its efforts to persuade its partners that a lack of respect for nature can have terrible social, environmental and economic consequences.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, research using supernumerary embryonic stem cells is necessary to bring closer the day when adult stem cells can be used therapeutically to cure 'dread diseases'. I am sure that goal is desired by everyone. Parliament's previous compromise was accepted by an absolute majority of this House. This restricts funding of research by the European Union only to embryos which are surplus to IVF requirements and are destined for destruction only at the undifferentiated stage of development up to 14 days and only in those jurisdictions where there is effective and strict regulation and it is permitted by law. This has yet again been adopted by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I regret that our rapporteur has represented his own position, rather than that of the committee. The suggestion that the European Union cannot fund ventures that are not permitted in any one Member State opens an absurd and dangerous precedent. What about nuclear research and the growing of the tobacco? I should like to tell Mrs Breyer that Germany permits research on imported embryos, even if German embryos are exempt. What is the purpose of a cut-off date? If it is valid to use embryos produced before a date, can it be invalid to use embryos produced after that date? An amendment by Mr Nisticò is flawed by the fact that it restricts itself to stem cell lines and not to embryos. Do we have so little trust in European IVF practitioners that they might be tempted to overproduce embryos for ulterior purposes? That is surely an unjustified calumny on an honourable profession. Is it more Christian to walk by on the other side and leave our fellow human beings lying in the ditch on the road to Jericho, smitten by Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease or spinal injury? God gave us humans inquiring minds, the ability to tame nature, the brains and skills to improve our lot on earth. Yes, we must respect human dignity and I completely respect my colleagues' strongly held views as to what human dignity is. However, I ask is it an early-stage embryo destined in any case for destruction, or is it your parents struck with Parkinson's Disease, or your teenage son paralysed with a broken neck? The Research Committee's considered position – Amendment 10 – is a position we must support. We must persuade the Council of Ministers to do likewise. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the regions are the very foundation of the European Union, and it is not without reason that we increasingly speak in terms of a Europe of the Regions. Recent years have seen an increased awareness of what the Member States' various regional and local authorities do, and of their autonomous nature. These authorities have an important part to play in bringing the European Union closer to its citizens, and it is the regional authorities in particular that make a decisive contribution to the success of cross-border cooperation and of the ever closer union of the individual Member States. As it is in the regions that the EU's grass-roots democracy does its work, it is obvious that the regions have to be involved in European policies. In its opinion on the Napolitano report, ‘The role of regional and local authorities in European integration’, the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities devoted special attention to gender mainstreaming. Democracy works only when everyone is involved, and that means women and men equally. We point out the democratic deficit arising from the under-representation of women in decision-making bodies and administrations in all areas of political, economic, social and – not least – professional life. The European Union's regions are significantly handicapped in their cohesion and in their development as democracies by the continuing under-representation of women in decision-making processes. Regional and local bodies play an important part in the labour market, among other areas, in that their superior grasp of local needs and obstacles gives them better proximity to jobseekers, and it is through them that the best ways of removing these obstacles may be found. It is vital to work towards the development of new social policies, and this includes, in particular, assessing support for equal treatment and its implementation. According to a Chinese proverb, women carry half of heaven on their shoulders; we are striving to open up the whole horizon as a means of shaping a Europe belonging to the regions' citizens. We are well aware, Commissioner, of this Parliament's inability to act in this area, but constant dripping wears the rock away, and the highlighting of deficits is for us both a task and an obligation. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The complexity of the IGC process inevitably requires a complex response from the European Parliament. The Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report covers a wide range of issues which could be considered in the framework of the IGC which is taking place over the remainder of 2000. The debate which has begun between Member States is reflected in the points of view expressed within the European Parliament, as is the tension over the scope of the IGC. The European Parliamentary Labour Party believes that it is imperative to conclude the IGC before the end of 2000 in order to leave the EU fully prepared for enlargement. In order to achieve this, we believe that the scope of the IGC should be restricted to 'tidying up' the outstanding points from Amsterdam, plus a small range of other issues. EPLP Members voted in accordance with this approach, reflecting our concerns over the following areas: There are doubts over the practicability of a European top-up list from 2009 of 10% of MEPs to be elected on a single European constituency. We have concerns over the workings of a European Public Prosecutor's office whilst being concerned to protect the Union's interests and resources against fraud throughout Community territory. Likewise, the legislative measures in criminal matters in respect of fraud damaging the interests of the Union will need to be carefully constructed. The EPLP believes that unanimity cannot solely be restricted to constitutional items, as issues including tax and social security must be dealt with at national level. Constitutionalising the Treaties and division into two parts is not acceptable to the EPLP, and the same concerns about unanimity apply here. The EPLP wishes to see a Charter of Fundamental Rights, but until the content of the Charter is determined, the question of giving it binding legal force should be left open. Whilst greater coordination is required at European level over our airspace (i.e. Eurocontrol), service provision should remain at national level – the Commission has never suggested a single agency and Eurocontrol already exists to coordinate. The Commission has not previously called for the establishment of a single European air traffic control agency and the request in this report is superfluous.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Graça Moura for a splendid piece of work and for the energy he has put into drawing up this report. I should also like to thank the Council for being so accommodating and the Commission for the role it has played as mediator, especially just recently. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is very happy to support initiatives which may create greater awareness of the value of linguistic diversity in the European Union. It is important that the EU’s citizens should be encouraged to learn foreign languages early on in school and also throughout their lives. A knowledge of languages is important, for European languages are of great significance to European culture and civilisation, and people need good language skills in order to be able to find employment in EU countries other than their own. The programme for the European Year of Languages offers a splendid basis for providing information about the many different opportunities there are for learning foreign languages, and it is important. Mr Graça Moura’s proposal includes the 11 official EU languages, together with a number of other languages recognised by the Member States, including Irish and Luxembourgish. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party also thinks that the programme should include other languages which are actually used in the various Member States, for instance Catalan in Spain and Frisian in the Netherlands. Finally, in the programme for the European Year of Languages, consideration is also given to the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, something which we in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party consider to be crucial to all EU programmes. On behalf of the Group, I can recommend supporting this programme.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Mr Simpson, I can assure you both that it is certainly not my intention to decimate the postal services. Quite the reverse, in fact: I intend to make them more effective, and Mr Ferber’s report is not a sound proposal in my opinion. Some of my colleagues do not share my opinion on a number of scores, as will become evident in due course. I thought the Commission’s proposal was a sound one. It represents an important step towards an internal market, and is important for consumers and companies who use those postal services, but we closed the door on it. At this rate, we will need 100 years to bring about an open market for postal services in Europe. Mr Simpson, your predictions have, as far as I can tell, not materialised in Sweden, although that country operates an open-market system. The same holds true for the Netherlands, and when I talk face to face with other people from postal companies, they do not express these concerns either. I therefore assume that you are only voicing half-truths and saying what you like to hear. I have tabled an amendment. At the very least, that will give us an end date. I believe that my amendment is gradual and controlled. It is not as ambitious as I would have liked, but I feel it is a sound compromise. We are now facing a peculiar situation, really. Although we go along with the postal monopolies, I notice that the German postal services are floating their company on the stock exchange, the Mecca of capitalism, and advertising in the Belgian newspapers to sell their shares because they are a profitable company. And where do these profits originate from? A monopoly. I have noticed that the Royal Mail has shares in a postal company in Sweden because over there, it can compete within an open market. But I ask you: would a Swede be able to compete in Britain? No. This is the type of situation which we want to avoid. In this case, we are on the same side as big business. They have literally laid down the law. It is a hypocritical situation, if you ask me, because these companies now have a finger in all sorts of pies and are paving the way for the free market. They are doing this very actively. They are restructuring and are making people redundant, Mr Simpson, even though they are monopolies, and I believe we are protecting those interests. We have turned the safety net for post users into a hammock for those large postal companies where they can carry on doing what they are now getting away with. I object to this practice and will vote against it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I welcome the work of the rapporteur in bringing this own-initiative report together. It strikes at the heart of the central question facing European agriculture at this crucial juncture, namely, whether the agricultural community can expect to make a fair living from its activities. One of the report's most illustrative points is that, while agricultural incomes rose by 7% in the EU between 1995 and 2002, this was at the expense of a 15% decrease in the number of farms. That means that small farms have been swallowed up by increasingly large farms and production that has become more intensive. With consumers demanding more information on the means by which their food is produced, this trend is one that must be addressed. Large farms, selling bulk commodities, with pollution risks and herd health problems represent a future that we must work to avoid. Whilst the figures may continue to suggest that incomes are growing, they hide the impact of increasingly intensive farming methods. This must be borne in mind each time the European Parliament – and more importantly, the European Commission – consider direct aid via the CAP. There is something seriously amiss with a system that continues to pump money into the pockets of some of Europe's largest and wealthiest landowners through lavish subsidies. The Duke of Westminster – Britain's richest man – receives EUR 1300 per day in agricultural subsidies, while small Welsh farmers are struggling to get by with as little as EUR 7000 per year. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel that we must take the opportunity afforded by Mr Napolitano’s report – and all credit is due to him for succeeding in this difficult, complex task – to stress, with all the institutional weight of the European Parliament, the need for the new Europe, which will be founded on the Constitutional Treaty on which the Convention is working, to apply the principle of subsidiarity completely and transparently. This means that the result will only be achieved if subsidiarity is not just applied to relations between the Union and the national States but is extended to the territorial authorities – the regional and local authorities – with all due respect for the constitutional systems of the respective countries, of course. Indeed, it is the territorial authorities – the regional and local authorities – alone which give substance to the democracy of proximity. It is they that make it possible to strengthen the roots of genuine democracy and to bring the citizens closer to the institutions, including the European institutions. The Convention is the forum which has been assigned the task of resolving this thorny issue. It started off focusing its attention solely on the first level of subsidiarity, the subsidiarity between the Union and the States. We need to free ourselves from this trap because, if we endorse this system of two levels of subsidiarity – subsidiarity between the Union and the States and between the States and the territorial authorities – we prevent – and I feel that this is the crux of the matter – recognition of that direct connection between the European institutions and the territorial authorities which now exists and which is yielding promising fruit, where it is not misinterpreted or destroyed at birth. We must resist this temptation at all costs and, to this end, I hope that the Convention will take on board the lengthy debate which has taken place in Europe, particularly in the Council of Europe, on the matter. My hope is that the Convention will succeed in recognising and endorsing the right to local and regional autonomy. This right will then be regulated within the respective legal systems of the individual countries but will have to comprise the single level of subsidiarity, the equal dignity of levels of government, the right of local autonomies to their own financial resources and the right to have access to justice, which can balance the technical needs to prevent this getting out of control against the needs of the territorial authorities, but which cannot stop it happening. It may be that the idea of strengthening the link through the Committee of the Regions is the solution we all need.

Political group: ELDR
I congratulate Mrs Jeggle on her report. Technically, there should not be any criticism of the motion under consideration for it faithfully follows the rationale behind Agenda 2000 which is an income support philosophy, even though, in our opinion, in the taking of planning and production decisions in the face of the current globalisation of markets there has as yet been no detailed analysis of the actual requirements of the farms. We cannot stress this point enough: in our opinion, farming behaves like an economic system and, at present, the European Union’s focus is shifting towards mere public funding without defining guidelines and foundations which allow farmers to see what their future will be. Farmers are not having an easy time at the moment. The impression they get is that we intend to make the farming sector increasingly less productive in economic terms. Proof of this is provided by the recent events –– incidents which have occurred during the last few months linked to WTO negotiations – from the Kosovo intervention financing aid in this region – an irreprehensible priority, but implemented with debatable timeframes and procedures – to the cases which have already been mentioned by my fellow Members of cuts in the cereals sector or the delay in deciding upon the proposal for the sugar sector. If we want to protect the European agricultural model, which is synonymous with agribusiness, we must also make sure that this activity is not eliminated, and this may well result in an increase in employment levels as well. We farmers have grown up with the European Union and we want to continue to grow with it.

Political group: PPE-DE