GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I also voted against the Liese report. We have to be very careful. Whether we like it or not, we live in Huxley's Brave New World. We need to be very careful about the kind of power and leeway we give to scientists. I find the kind of lobbying that went on grossly offensive, using illnesses such as Alzheimer's – which my father died from – as an excuse to go ahead with embryo stem cell research. Many scientists have said that in the case of Alzheimer's adult stem cells are more reliable. It is completely unacceptable that European taxpayers' money should be used to fund something that is not allowed in some Member States. If Member States want to do it, let them use their own taxpayers' money, not funds that are for the whole of the European Union. If Mr Ó Neachtain feels so strongly about this, let him resign from his party if his government will not vote against this in the Council of Ministers. The Irish Government must vote against this! There is no point in making a lot of loud statements here if the government will not follow through on what it is supposed to do and support Germany and the other countries that are opposed. That is the only logical and honest approach.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as it is now Christmas, I would be grateful if you would allow me to speak for a moment. I would like to thank you and clear up a misunderstanding. The President is entitled to allow an MEP to ask a question of the Commission. I wanted to ask the Commissioner a question and also answer a question that you asked of Mr Mayer. I wanted to say that in the spring there will be a large beer-tasting session for Bavarian beer in the Parliament courtyard here in Strasbourg. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we too would like to thank the rapporteur for his comprehensive work. On this occasion, unfortunately, we are unable to support him on all points, and we regret that there was not enough time left for a discussion of the individual amendments before the vote in committee. We identify two main problems with the amendments. Firstly, we are in favour of strengthening the Supervisory Committee, but we are also against the Supervisory Committee then being allocated to the European Parliament. If a Supervisory Committee is to be genuinely independent in its evaluations, it should be independent of Parliament as well. At the moment, we can perceive another tendency in the current debate about the Supervisory Committee. It is extremely regrettable that there is still no European Public Prosecutor at present and that we will probably have to wait some time for this. However, we should not now make the mistake of trying to achieve a transitional solution which pushes the Supervisory Committee vicariously into this role, as this would not be the appropriate role. What we need, in the long term, is judicial control of OLAF, but this can only be provided by the European Public Prosecutor, not by a substitute committee. We take an equally critical view of another problem. We see that Parliament is increasingly seeking to involve itself in OLAF’s internal affairs, and we do not think this is right. We take the view that OLAF must be – and must remain – genuinely independent, but this does not mean that its independence from the Commission is necessarily strengthened if this House gets involved in micromanaging OLAF at the same time. That is quite wrong, in our view. Genuine independence also means administrative independence. Overall, I think we need a thorough rethink of the amendments. I hope that we can achieve a compromise that a majority in the committee can support. I would also, however, like to make one thing clear to Mrs Stauner. We will not support most of your amendments, for we think it wrong that they should contain an implicit vote of no confidence in OLAF and apportion blame – also in a one-sided way – as regards the Commission’s role in the Eurostat affair. This is something we will not go along with.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the Commission’s proposal for an amendment to the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables is exacerbating the problems of the current market organisation and the unfairness of the CAP. It is also creating greater difficulties for fruit and vegetable growers. Particularly serious are the measures designed to abolish the minimum price, which affects tomatoes destined for processing, the reduction in the limit for aid for operational funds from 4.5% to 3% of the value of the production marketed by each producer organisation, the precautionary reduction of 9.1% of the amount of aid for the first marketing year following the reform of the COM and a reduction in the citrus fruit withdrawal ceiling. A sector as important in economic, social and strategic terms as this one, particularly for Portugal, with considerable scope for job creation and for supporting the rural development of huge areas of the countries of southern Europe, deserves special attention, which it is not receiving from the Commission. The amendments tabled by the rapporteur, Mr Jové Peres, therefore deserve our support, since they seek to correct the unacceptable views held by the Commission, specifically in its proposals against increasing aid to farmers, on increasing thresholds and on resetting ceilings for aid to producer organisations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
It makes sense to harmonise driving restrictions on lorries at European level, since each Member State currently applies its own regulations. There is no reason, though, why harmonisation should be carried out based on the most moderate regulations, according to the wishes of the road transport lobbies, as this would involve limiting the restrictions and allowing States that are indulgent towards HGV transport to allow hauliers to travel as and when they like. We therefore voted in favour of all the amendments which seek to introduce additional driving restrictions, taking into account “topographical, environmental or road safety grounds”. Since these restrictions were not adopted, we voted against the report. More generally speaking, however, the problem cannot be resolved simply by means of regulation. It would not be enough just to ban transporting goods by road at weekends. We should develop rail transport and combined road-rail transport as part of a European public railway service.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, President Prodi, at first sight the White Paper might seem tied down to its essentially technical content. If, instead, we consider the reasons why it was drawn up – reasons that should have been given greater coverage in the text itself – we realise that it has a very solid and highly relevant political core. In the G8 debate here in this House, I pointed out that, while globalisation is proceeding apace in all fields, it is hard for it to involve politics, which thus remains inadequate and slow compared with what is happening in other sectors. This is undoubtedly one of the basic reasons for citizens’ widespread mistrust of institutions at all levels, from local to European to worldwide. Besides, what do the people of Seattle, Gothenburg or Genoa, leaving aside the more extreme positions, want of politics, if not to control globalisation? What answer are we in a position to give, today, apart from our own inadequacy? The European Union project is, of course, still the only concrete example that can meet these demands, but it has not yet expressed its democratic potential to the full. The White Paper is thus a valuable instrument, provided Parliament shows the same willingness to specify those substantial organisational reforms that will enable it to reconstruct and revive European democratic citizenship.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I knew that Mr Méndez de Vigo was reactionary on issues of European diversity, but I did not know that he was so ignorant. To call the concept of a people archaic not only runs counter to the fundamental principles of our civilisation, it is also contrary to many constitutions, such as that of the United States of America, which starts with the precise phrase ‘We the people’. Mr Méndez de Vigo's statement conflicts with the constitution of the United States, and also with the views of his boss, José Maria Aznar. Mr President, we believe that the European Union is at present an historically unprecedented union of shared sovereignty, and the stateless nations, such as Galicia, want to make progress through their participation in these institutions, and are even working towards a kind of internal enlargement. What we ask is why Malta and not Galicia? Why Cyprus and not Scotland? Stateless nations very often have a history, a political will and a demography that justify this participation. Nevertheless, the Napolitano report was a step in the right direction, but it has to some extent been frustrated by the reactionary Jacobinism of people like Mr Aznar and Mr Méndez de Vigo, a Jacobinism that is now negated by the reality of the European Union itself.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I am afraid I must raise this issue again. In your letter of 14 July it appears to me that this House is putting Members' health below that of the state of the carpets. I was quite shocked to receive the letter to say that ashtrays will be put outside the Chamber, along with no smoking signs, because you have always been helpful in the past on this matter of smoking in this building. It is incredible to me that there are Parliament rules stating that there are no smoking areas yet we do not have a safe passage into this Chamber. I have just been diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis and the medication I am taking makes my asthma worse. I plead for a safe route from my office into this plenary session, not only for me but for other Members here who suffer from other breathing problems. I hope this will be put into place immediately because, otherwise, my health and other people's health will suffer. I hope you will look into it as a matter of urgency and remove all ashtrays from all the no smoking areas as a matter of course. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr Atkins' report addresses an issue which is perhaps the most important issue which either Mrs de Palacio or we in the European Parliament will have to deal with over the next four or five years and I must start by congratulating Mr Atkins on his approach in this specific report. Despite which, there is clearly a huge problem here. Overall delays in flights have risen from 12.7% in 1991 to 30% in 1999. By 2010, the number of flights will have more or less doubled, resulting in wasted time, financial loss, saturation and, hence, safety risks. Eurocontrol has proven to be inadequate as a mechanism for managing air traffic. It is therefore absolutely essential that Vice-President de Palacio take decisive action, as she has done so far, in order to establish a real single European sky. The Member States must overcome their perhaps justified anxiety as regards the management of their airspace and, at some point, must take a longer-term view of newly-emerging needs which goes beyond their borders and beyond the present situation. We need to take immediate action and to regulate the myriad technical details, such as relations between civil and military aviation. In the meantime, however, passengers must be compensated for delays by airlines and must, of course, be apprised of their rights. I should like to close my intervention by reminding the House that, when the European Parliament voted on the report for the Intergovernmental Conference, it took view that the regulatory operation of air traffic in Europe, in our Member States, should be taken over by the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was surprised to hear a few minutes ago that Guantanamo Bay was a centre for English language teaching. That is quite extraordinary because the holding of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay runs contrary to human rights. The prisoners have no access to an independent lawyer, and we do not know who exactly is being held or what precise charges are being brought against them. Under such conditions, there is reason to be concerned about the detainees’ mental health. Without the prior assistance of an independent lawyer, we can say that there is an obvious risk of negotiation to reach an agreement and doing so in order to get the charges reduced. If that is the case, detainees will be able to choose to plead guilty, even if they are not, in order to escape the death penalty. It is clear that President Bush and the US leadership want show trials with confessions because it is presidential election year. The European Parliament’s position must therefore be intransigent against terrorism, but also intransigent on respect for international law. It is unacceptable to sentence someone before a verdict has been reached. That is what is happening here, sometimes even in this Chamber. We must all therefore denounce this legal black hole in which the detainees find themselves. We can all remember the horror of what happened, but we do not want terrorism to win and we must demand fair treatment for all and show that we defend values that respect the law. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the best means we all have of combating barbarity.

Political group: PSE
I would like to congratulate the Irish Presidency and the Council on all the efforts they are making to resolve the Kosovo conflict and other conflicts around the world. The Council and the Institutions are very concerned about what is happening in the world. They try to offer solutions and contributions to promote peace in the world and resolve conflicts. The European Union is also involved in helping to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland. This even includes providing financial support for the peace process. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, would it be too much to ask that some small efforts might be made too to help resolve the political conflict in the Basque Country, which is also part of the European Union?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the believe that non-violent methods of solving conflicts must play a much greater role than military intervention during the 21st century, and that any force which could, under exceptional circumstances, become necessary should only be applied following a UN mandate. We envisage an important role for the EU as a non-violent civilian peace maker. For this reason, we regret that the German presidency did not follow the European Parliament's recommendation to the Council to carry out a pilot study for a European civilian peace corps. We are also worried about the resolutions of the meeting in Cologne which have been interpreted around the world as important steps towards militarising the EU. The Swedish government has been forced to say that if more steps are taken in the same direction, a veto would have to be lodged. The Finnish presidency has requested clarification as to whether the Cologne resolution means that the EU would only be able to intervene following a UN mandate, or whether the EU, like NATO, would be entitled to take the law into its own hands. Joschka Fischer now states that the resolutions taken in Cologne do not imply a militarisation of the EU, which all sounds very nice. But why then are Poettering and Goerens, who are now in the vanguard for a militarisation of the EU, so satisfied? Why is the WEU military alliance integrated into the EU? Why, according to the resolutions taken in Cologne, is the EU to create a military commission, a military council and other military institutions? I really do hope that Joschka Fischer is serious when he says that the EU will not be militarised, which would reunite him with the ' fundamental principles of non-violence. As a non-violent civilian body, the EU is indeed able to play a very important positive role. Were we, however, to become a military superpower competing with other superpowers for world hegemony, the EU would only contribute to power struggles, chaos and warfare, which I sincerely hope will not be the case.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, gender equality should not be something with which we concern ourselves on just one day per year. In the twenty-first century, equality should, on the contrary, be a natural part of everyday life in a democracy. There is a need for more women in leading positions generally, especially in politics. Talk of genuine democracy is meaningless unless there is also genuine equality. Our goal in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is to achieve a balanced representation of men and women. We would therefore call upon our member parties to comply with that objective in connection with the elections to the European Parliament. Enlargement to include the ten East and Central European countries on 1 May is of historic importance. At the same time, it gives rise, however, to some concern. The observers from these countries have done a fine piece of work in Parliament, but I hope that the new elections in June will ensure a more equal distribution of the sexes. At present, approximately 30% of MEPs are women. That figure should, as a minimum, be retained at the forthcoming election in June. In that connection, I wish to send a powerful appeal to all women to use their right to vote on 13 June. Increased influence and equality for women will only come about if women themselves are also prepared to assume responsibility. Of the ten shadow commissioners, as they are called, who have been appointed from 1 May, three are women. They should be welcomed. At the same time, I hope that, in connection with the appointment of the forthcoming Commission, the Member States will comply with the proposal from the Convention to the effect that all the Member States must nominate three candidates for the Commission, with representatives from both sexes. Women play a crucial role in modern, developed democracies. Gender equality and economic development go hand in hand. It is worth noting that those societies that have the highest degree of real equality are often also those societies that are most successful in social and economic terms. If we are to create a strong and competitive Europe, there is a need for women to participate as much as men in the labour market and, it should be noted, with equal wages and the same conditions of employment. Finally, I wish to express solidarity with all those women around the world who do not enjoy basic human rights and who are victims of persecution, violence, trafficking in human beings and all other forms of threat, discrimination and assault. We in the Group shall continue to work towards improving conditions for these women. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I have been listening to the translations of the speeches on my headphones for a long time now, and the sound disappears sometimes, even if I change places, and I also get a rasping noise, not only here but also in our Group’s room. There is some technical fault here, and I wish the relevant people would check whether there is too much interference here, owing to mobile phones, for example. Even the position of my head affects audibility, and I cannot really sit here listening with my head tilted to one side. The other request I have is for a technician to adjust the sound volume here. Some Members shout into the microphone, even though the microphone is, in fact, there to make shouting unnecessary, thereby making it impossible to hear anything over the headphones. So whenever someone shouts into the microphone – even though they should not – I would ask that the sound volume in the Chamber be lowered immediately, so that we can also hear what is being said over the headphones.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are on the verge of a really historic round of accessions. The European House can and will be extended eastwards. At the same time, a further southwards expansion will enrich the European Union with two beautiful and culturally valuable island states, Malta and Cyprus. It will not surprise you, however, if I now discuss one of these two states, namely Cyprus. Cyprus is the candidate country that has made the most progress in adapting to the acquis communautaire. That has already been pointed out. We can therefore safely assume that Cyprus will be included in the first round of accessions and that the next European elections will also take place in Cyprus. The question is: will all Cypriots, Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike, be able to take part in those elections? In other words, will the division of the island, which is contrary to international law, be overcome prior to accession? We want it to be. We hope it will be. It really is time that Europe’s last divided capital at last became a living capital again and that Cypriots of both ethnic groups could live together in Cyprus in peace. I very much hope, as the President-in-Office of the Council has also made clear, that a political solution will be found by October at the latest. The fact that direct negotiations are now taking place for the first time in many years shows that the accession process is having the catalytic effect we hoped for. I also hope that Turkey, which is also a candidate country, understands that a solution for Cyprus is very much in Turkey’s interest and that Denktash cannot insist on a two state model. It is in Europe’s as well as Cyprus’ interest that the solution should result in a state that is capable of acting and taking decisions at international and European level. Cyprus must speak with one voice. If such a solution is not achieved by October, then we must try to ensure that Cyprus’ accession or membership acts as a catalyst for a solution, because the overwhelming majority of Turkish Cypriots want to belong to the European Union and they also want to be able to live in a free Cyprus after accession.

Political group: PSE