GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the decision in the court case against Leyla Zana shows beyond doubt that Turkey is not yet ready negotiate its accession to the EU. Unaffected by the official reforms in Turkey, the court is doing things the way they were done in the old days, so anyone who had attended the hearings – as I did – could conclude that the initial judgment, founded upon one sentence spoken in Kurdish and harshly criticised by the European Court of Human Rights, would be upheld. Turkey could have used the trial as a means of demonstrating that its reforms of the justice system exist not only on paper. This was not, in the final analysis, about the minutiae of the law, but about a woman whose fate had become a symbol of the failure of Turkish politics and Turkish justice, a woman whose trial was a test of how seriously reforms were being taken. Neither that, nor the fact that the eyes of the world were upon them, could induce the court to conduct a trial in accordance with the rule of law. Let me ask you this, then: if even the case of Leyla Zana cannot bring about change in the Turkish legal system, how are reforms to be implemented at all? In principle – and let me make this clear – I am in favour of Turkey joining the EU, provided that it meets the relevant conditions. Turkey has known for years that there must be drastic change in it if it is to have a prospect of acceding, but yesterday’s judgment shows that the willingness to do so is still not yet present, and so the EU must now, at last, cut short all this talk about the commencement of accession negotiations being imminent. Those who, in the aftermath of this ruling, continue to insist that accession negotiations will be possible in six months’ time, show only their indifference to the Copenhagen criteria and their interest in the implementation of strategic objectives to the exclusion of all else. Far from it; the fact remains that the criteria for accession to the EU have been laid down and must still be met. For as long as Turkey ignores that fact, there can be no accession negotiations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a known fact that, if death from radioactive weapons is due to human insensitivity, then deaths from road traffic accidents are due mainly to human stupidity. And it not only behoves an organised state not to be stupid in its own acts and omissions; it must also protect its citizens from the consequences of their own stupidity. It is as part of this endeavour that the excellent report by our fellow member, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, on the Commission communication on the priorities in road safety defines the way forward. Action is needed on three fronts: first, by taking legislative, regulatory action, secondly, by promoting new technologies in vehicles and in the road infrastructure and, thirdly, by taking administrative action and running an information campaign. Of course, if we take care to ensure that any measures taken receive widespread support, then they will be even more effective and if, at the same time, we draw on the experiences of the Member States in these areas, then we shall be sure to strike a happy medium. For example, everyone could agree to a drastic reduction in alcohol levels for certain categories of drivers, such as those carrying dangerous loads. In addition, modern technology can and should be used in order to put the measures decided into practice and to control the application of current provisions. And, of course, we should mobilise local society and regional bodies and ensure that they are more closely involved in road safety issues by addressing the people directly. At the same time, the information campaign must, of course, continue to run, using cleverer ways of getting through to the public, especially young people. Likewise, it might be worth examining the possibility of rewarding the safest vehicles through the road tax system and demanding minimum safety specifications depending on the type of road, so that road design and construction can be integrated into programmes subsidised by the European Union. Finally, we call on the Commission not to 'race' through cases such as today's. That is what road safety needs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we too, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, have been able to discuss this regulation. Moreover, we have had plenty of time to do so, for the opinion was, I believe, expressed last September. Indeed, we were aware of the importance of not leaving a gap between the adoption of a new regulation and the expiry of the previous one. In the Committee on Women’s Rights, we decided to emphasise, first and foremost, the need to accompany these policies with a literacy programme promoting education, training, knowledge and culture, including basic information services on communicable diseases, hygiene, health and human rights. Great importance and value were accorded to this element, precisely because we believe that all the agreements we negotiate should be accompanied by the requirement of strict observance of human rights and, in particular, by a clear demand for policies of gender equality, as a precondition for any policy on the countries in question. We are convinced that reproductive health problems are also closely linked to issues of poverty and underdevelopment. We therefore believe that it is only by pursuing this line that they can be resolved. There is, of course, an urgent need, a need which we intend to address, first and foremost, with preventive and aid policies relating to pregnancy and birth but also responding to the need to combat diseases communicable from mother to child.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the EU’s Budget for the year 2000 is a genuine step in the right direction. Let us not forget that the priorities we are setting relate to important matters. We are investing in environmentally friendly agriculture, in the protection of animals and plants and in safe food. We are increasing our efforts in support of vulnerable groups and in the fight against poverty in Europe. We are investing in the fight against unemployment and, especially, in local employment initiatives. We are preparing for the enlargement of the European Union to include new Member States and we emphasise that this process must be given a broadly citizen-oriented dimension. The dialogue between the two sides of industry in the labour market must be extended to include the applicant States, and we want the Committee of the Regions to have the chance to develop a dialogue at local and regional level. I myself have tabled a proposal concerning a means of achieving decentralised cooperation around the Baltic. In spite of setting these priorities, we have nonetheless succeeded in reducing our budget commitments. It was therefore naturally depressing that, as late as yesterday, we had not reached a final conclusion, despite the significant degree of essential unity. I personally have been hoping for a compromise all this time. We ought of course to be able to reach a compromise because, in my view, Parliament has already moved a long way in order to achieve this. We have set aside the position we had adopted on principle to the effect that we ought now, before the year 2000, to revise the budget ceilings. This is because the Council wants to add major new items of expenditure in connection with Kosovo, East Timor and Turkey, among other issues. We have accepted large reductions in payments in spite of the fact that we already have a mountain of payments before us. It is not possible to decide upon major commitments year after year and then not, in fact, to pay out. In spite of our opposition to linear cutbacks in aid, we have agreed to make substantial reductions, but of a more targeted nature. It is important to note here that there is not in fact any prevailing disunity on the subject of Kosovo. I am therefore pleased that the Council now seems to be coming back to Parliament and approving our proposals. The people of Kosovo ought not to continue to suffer because we cannot agree about the Budget. Now, there is one more thing that is important. If we are going to cope successfully with the future, with the enlargement of the European Union and with developments in the Balkans over the next few years, then we must find a better way of cooperating. Let us learn from the debate we have now had.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the committee, I have asked that the vote on the resolution be postponed until the second part-session of March in Brussels. Since this is a complex and delicate issue, we are going to hold a debate in committee this afternoon, in an extraordinary meeting, and on Wednesday we will hold another, as a result of the Commission’s statement. I believe, since we are dealing with an issue which, as I have said, is delicate and on which we have to act prudently, it is better to transfer the vote on the resolution to this month’s part-session in Brussels, with the presentation, of course, of the corresponding amendments by the political groups.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am surprised that, since Commissioner Liikanen has said that the European Union is going to rigorously apply the rules in force, we should have any doubts about the review of the agreement with Israel which is taking place at the moment. I have no reason to doubt that the rule will be applied, but I do very much doubt whether this Parliament – or a minority within it – wishes to promote peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. I have always been convinced that, if we want peace, we cannot play at being the bad guys and constantly penalise one of the parties. If we want to have credibility, we should play positively, and if we want to replace or, at least, compensate for the influence of the United States – which many here talk about – over Israel, and if we want Israel to trust in Europe, what we cannot do is always seek to castigate. If the occupied territories are soon – and we hope this is the case – going to pass into the hands of the Palestinian Authority, why leave them in ruins? Why ruin them? Because there is a lot of falseness here. The Palestinian area does have a preferential system, just like the Israeli area. The problem is that there is this contradiction, this illogicality, that this territory is both Palestinian and Israeli, as the Israelis believe. We must seek points of agreement, we must seek peace. We must be credible to the Israeli people, and I do not believe we are going to achieve that through a ‘scorched earth policy’. Furthermore, with a policy of this type, subsequent investment by the Palestinians in order to incorporate these territories will be much greater. So I would repeat, why do we not seek points of agreement? Why does Europe not stretch out its hand to Israel? I must repeat that I do not understand why we do not do so. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, I want to add my voice to those Members calling for the swift passage of this legislation through Parliament. This is a Parliament with a proud record. Since the 1980s we have led on action and on initiatives to combat racism, xenophobia and discrimination. We now have, in the Buitenweg report, a unique opportunity to see those efforts incorporated into a package of legislation and an action plan. I want to thank the rapporteur for incorporating the amendment by the Committee on Legal Affairs to extend the proposal to cover institutional racism. We, too, believe that we have to see a ban on incitement to racism. Groups and anti-racist organisations in my region, in the North-West of England, are eagerly awaiting this legislation. For some of them, victims of racism, action cannot come quick enough and PPE pleading on respecting parliamentary procedure, I am afraid, will fall on deaf ears in my region’s organisations. Racism is on the rise again. We all have our local examples. For example, in Liverpool an Asian scriptwriter was attacked, his car forced off the road and local thugs then tried to impale him on a fence spike. So vicious was this attack that Merseyside police called for an urgent press conference. The Jewish community in North Manchester are persistently the subject of victimisations and racism, their property defaced and they are subjected to racial threats and abuse. This has to stop. This is why it is vital that Europe gives a strong public statement on racism and discrimination backed up by legislative action to ban this and to extend the scope of legal redress by shifting the burden of proof from the victim to the racist and allied groups and organisations to bring race discrimination cases to courts across the EU. In voting through this report and its recommendations, this Parliament can give a strong signal that it is prepared to be tough on racism and tough on the causes and perpetrators of racism. Those parties which seek to legitimise and promote racism and discrimination through the ballot box, and we have examples in many countries, should take note of this directive and incorporate the recommendations and its legal force in their own constitutions. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank our rapporteur for his quite remarkable work, particularly when we are talking about an issue of this scale, which involves taking real action, since, for once, we will be working on consumer information, on training and on new production priorities. I think it is crucial to provide information about the state of the EU’s energy demand when it comes to energy consumption in the housing and tertiary sectors. This applies all the more at a time when the threat of global warming hangs over our future. Of course, we must also add to this the problem of our dependence on outside sources of energy supply. This is a directive which will, as a result of the four following instruments: the methodology for calculating the integrated energy performance of buildings, the application of minimum energy performance requirements to new buildings and to buildings undergoing renovations and the establishment of a system of energy performance certification, I believe, increase consumer information and encourage owners to invest in improving energy performance, which is in both their interest and that of their tenants. The particular notice system that we wish to put in place will enable us not only to keep citizens informed about this energy performance, but also to give public authorities an exemplary role in the field. It is therefore a text that constitutes a considerable qualitative leap in relation to the SAVE programme, because it has a restrictive nature that will give us total credibility with regard to the Kyoto challenges. I thank both the Commission and the Council which have, fortunately, abandoned the approach of voluntary measures in favour of that of a genuine piece of European legislation, which will alone guarantee results as well as uniform implementation. No one could think that this directive imposes constraints and an excessive burden on the construction sector. We maintain on the contrary that this is an opportunity for industry, for research and the consumer and represents a genuine boost for research into insulating material and heating and air-conditioning systems. Eventually, European industry will have considerable expertise in the field of the energy performance of buildings, which will enhance its modernisation and its competitiveness. We shall, at the same time, be extremely careful to undertake an evaluation and to ensure a usage that is geared more towards housing for the most disadvantaged members of society. Might we perhaps be able to hope that the first experimental models will be the buildings of the European Union itself? I thank you also for the clarity and the transparency of the work undertaken with the Commission, and above all for the close attention the Council has paid. This is why, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to vote in favour of this text.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Prodi, if the implementation of a policy to limit the new debts entered into by states adds up in practice to inflation-cutting measures combined with a simultaneous increase in economic growth, then there is nothing to be said against it. Here lies the crux of the situation we are in today. The best option for generating growth is to encourage demand by means of investments by governments, investments by enterprises and by private consumption. If, despite the European internal market, nation states continue to assume that they must gain for themselves advantageous positions within the European Union – and that is possible in the absence of an adequate harmonisation of economic, fiscal and social policy – then, quite simply, the fundamental conditions for sustainable growth in Europe are not there. Increased domestic demand will not be achieved by reducing wages, which diminishes purchasing power, or by increasing the tax burden on small businesses, which create more jobs and apprenticeships than anyone else, and it will not be brought about by taking so much of the tax burden off big businesses that they no longer pay anything at all. Cutting investment rates during a slowdown, even though there is no inflation of any significance, has a procyclic effect and makes no economic sense. There are marked differences between the budgets of the Member States. The fact that shadow budgets are the order of the day means that there is, even within the European Union, no comparable basis for the calculation and management of budgets. If this leads us to talk in terms of altering the Stability and Growth Pact, this must not be done because of the present complex economic situation, for that would be political opportunism; instead, discussion must be a consequence of the construct being fundamentally dysfunctional. Any reform of the Stability and Growth Pact must go hand in hand with greater coordination of European policies on the economy, social affairs, employment, tax and the environment, if there is to be any real upturn in investment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Mrs Doyle and Mr Purvis, who have the pleasure of being here to listen to me in person, why did I vote for the Fiori report? Not just because Mr Fiori is an important agricultural expert – he was the agriculture spokesman in the Lombardy Regional Assembly – and not only because of his name, ‘Fiori’, which could potentially make European agriculture the flower of Europe, but also because, last night, I dreamt, inter alia, that he was the biblical Joseph, interpreting dreams and thus managing to get grain during periods of famine in Egypt. I hope, then, dear Mr Fiori, that you can bring us seven years of fat cows!

Political group: PPE-DE
I hope that Commissioner Vitorino does not feel weighed down with too many questions about the Schengen Agreement and the Nordic exemption from having to carry a passport, but I should like to follow up what has been said by my fellow MEPs, Mr Sjöstedt and Mr Krarup. Swedish ID documents make no mention of citizenship, but it has been possible, in spite of that, to use them within Scandinavia. Does the Schengen Agreement mean that Swedish ID documents will not be of use and relevance within the Schengen area in future? If so, this would be a change for the worse for Swedish citizens. Have I understood correctly? I cannot interpret Mr Vitorino’s answer in any other way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel that the Lisbon Summit has presented us with a picture of a future Europe which cannot, which must not be purely an economic Europe, but which must be a genuine political entity. And in order to be a political entity, Europe must have a cultural and social, as well as economic structure. In my opinion, therefore, the proposal presented by the Commission on the social agenda is extremely positive. However, I do agree with almost all of Mrs Van Lancker’s report – and for this I am grateful to her – for I do not believe that when Mrs Van Lancker makes a specific reference to clear objectives, proposals for specific instruments and, in particular, precise deadlines, that she is reverting to the logic of old, as somebody has suggested today. It is rather that she is simply reverting to a longstanding need, the need for cohesion in a situation which, from this point of view, is becoming increasingly difficult to regulate because it lacks any form of harmonisation. In discussing a Charter of Fundamental Rights and advocating a European Constitution we cannot shy away from certain issues: we have to insist that all the necessary measures must be taken, even if this means producing more accurate legislation. I do not believe that Mrs Van Lancker intends to create laws to regulate absolutely everything; I feel rather that she considers it necessary, when coordinating actions do not produce the desired results, when the citizens encounter inequalities between the States and when there is no social harmonisation, to bring about this harmonisation. The issue of open coordination must therefore be tackled alongside a comprehensive action to develop social legal bases, for without them we will not be able to persuade the States to harmonise a social policy which upholds equality and equal opportunities.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this Parliament and Council directive on general product safety is important to the safety of the consumer. The aim is that this directive should also incorporate products which still do not come within the province of sectoral legislation and products whose safety aspects are not dealt with very well by sectoral legislation. That is important for the internal market, and it is also important for consumers to be able to rely on products within the European market displaying a high safety content. Needless to say, these consumers must then proceed to use these products in a responsible manner. This directive thus creates more clarity by explaining definitions and, at the same time, simplifying procedures so that Member States can obtain information more quickly. People still die of the effects of unsafe products. Moreover, I am of the opinion that it is irresponsible for safe product standards to be observed on behalf of EU citizens, but for citizens outside the EU to have to content themselves with less safe products. If we take these products off the shelves here, we should no longer export them. In fact, that is, of course, an issue that goes beyond this report, and I think we have not heard the last of it. This report can count on our unqualified support.

Political group: ELDR