GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
This is a very complex issue, which needs to be studied with the utmost seriousness. An international judicial body which prosecutes crimes against humanity must be totally independent, of which there is no guarantee in the case of the ICC, because it is closely tied to the United Nations Security Council. This means that we cannot discount the risk of its being used as a political instrument by the ‘winners’ against the ‘losers’, an instrument of the law of the ‘strongest’. Let us remember the unacceptable example of the ‘ad hoc’ Court established for the former Yugoslavia. Furthermore, the planned sanctions must not represent a step backwards in relation to the achievements and progress in civilisational terms that have been made, such as, for example, the abolition of life imprisonment, which has long been the case in Portugal. We would also need to consider whether the ICC is the most effective way of ensuring that the crimes provided for in its status do not go unpunished, and whether the ICC complies with the appropriate rules with regard to the principles of criminal law and the prerogatives of national legal systems in dealing with the same crimes. We feel that this is not the case. Lastly, I feel bound to criticise the proposal, contained in this resolution, for the revision of the Geneva Conventions on the status of prisoners of war, at a time when we are seeing the USA thoroughly violate these conventions. Hence my vote against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I had hoped the European Parliament would do its job to bridge differences between our countries at this time of international crisis, and like every rational member in this Chamber I believe everything possible must be done to avoid war whenever possible. However, when an amendment passed which specifically condemned the decision to take military action which has already started, and which involves some of our own countries, I found it impossible to give my support. MEPs should instead have looked forward to our joint task to seek the swiftest possible end to conflict with the minimum of casualties, to humanitarian assistance for the Iraqi people and to plans for the rebuilding of the country under the firm auspices of the United Nations. Europe will not truly influence America or world affairs unless we are able to resolve our differences and speak with a common voice. That is the lesson to be learnt from today's failure to find an acceptable common resolution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I speak on yesterday's Minutes and something which is not in them. Yesterday evening I raised two points. One was on the success of Euro 2000. The second one was on whether or not Mr Helmer joined with me in congratulating Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on welcoming the introduction of the euro into the UK. I do not see that minuted. Could you change that please? ***

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome this Commission initiative, but I would like in particular to congratulate Mr Cashman and Mr Mann on their excellent work in producing these reports. Given the large number of discriminatory actions, decisions and attitudes which still appear today in Europe, I am pleased with these reports which we are debating today and which contain certain points which I feel to be particularly noteworthy. Firstly, we must insist on the need to bear in mind, when implementing the concrete actions of this programme, Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which is the pivotal instrument in the fight against discrimination in the European Union. Secondly, we must highlight the particular discrimination suffered by certain social groups, women, the disabled, immigrants, homosexual men and women, the elderly and ethnic minorities and, within these groups, we must insist on the importance of monitoring and implementing concrete measures in the fight against cases of multiple or double discrimination, which occur especially in the case of women. We therefore have to stress the need to integrate the gender element into all areas of the fight against discrimination and, in parallel, I wish to ask the Commission to make a clear and decisive effort to achieve coherence between the directives, recommendations and programmes against discrimination, giving this House a leading role in the establishment of priorities, the carrying out of an assessment of the effectiveness of the actions proposed today in this programme and the revision, if necessary, of the actions and decisions taken within this action programme. Lastly, the European Parliament must be kept informed, taking account of the reports and opinions produced by this House, and we must highlight the importance and necessity of truly making use of the opinion and participation of the NGOs and associations – and providing them with the necessary resources – since they are without doubt the key to the success of the measures adopted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would first of all like to thank the President of this eventful sitting, the Members present and Mrs Reding. Commissioner, with regard to the forestry issue, I would like to say that, although your openness has sometimes made your words difficult to accept, you have, at least, been frank, in contrast with those declarations made at the time of the incidents, which may have been rather rash. I sincerely feel that your approach is far more beneficial to the credibility of the European Union than the tone of the declarations made when the issue first arose, which led us to believe that Europe was much more involved than it actually intended to be. The subject of the forestry sector is now open to debate, and we must take up the issue of natural disasters as well, for we cannot endeavour to draw closer to our citizens and then explain to them that we are unable to help them when they are in trouble, while, at the same time, we are sending task forces abroad. This is a matter of genuine symbolic and political significance. So thank you. I would like to express my support for the comments of Mr Daul, who worked together with Evelyne Gebhardt to draft this resolution on the timber industry, and to express my regret and shock at the fact that we have exploited the plight of the people of Ethiopia to further our petty games. Petty games which are not acknowledged, moreover, for although, effectively, the right does exist to request that the quorum be tested and also to bring up the issue of Friday working, it is blatantly obvious that this morning’s events were an attack by the anti-Strasbourg faction. And, even more seriously, it appears that this incident may well be repeated every Friday. We do, however, have one small consolation in that it will not be long before their refusal to participate affects those who were conspicuous by their absence today and who managed to derail this morning’s sitting. We simply need to return to the issue of the agenda again as soon as possible. It is a well-known fact, and I am publicly admitting it before all those here today, that the Chamber is never full because Parliament’s work is specialised. Nevertheless, we must stop trying to hide... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start my additional question with the Tibetan greeting, which betokens peace and happiness. We are not just talking about human rights and the environment where Tibet is concerned, rather it is about a unique cultural heritage that is also able to communicate important values such as peace, serenity, compassion – as the Dalai Lama would say – to us Europeans. The question before us now is what can the Commission do to provide more practical support for his Holiness, the Dalai Lama’s, proposal for a peaceful solution to the Tibet affair? I would point out that doing nothing will be the death of Tibetan culture and will mean the end of the Tibetan people.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The EPLP voted for the resolution on the Santa Maria de Feira European Council on 19 and 20 June 2000 but does not support paragraph 19. The UK Government position, which is supported by the EPLP, is that it is better to allow this type of negotiation to be undertaken by the works councils. It is our belief that it would be more effective to advance the status of the European Companies Statute.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have asked the competent services to make a linguistic correction because Amendment No 2 has been tabled in English and there are other versions which contain the word ‘considerable’, which does not appear in the English version, which is the true one. I would ask that this correction be made.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, although the debate is not yet finished, I would nevertheless like to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues for their comments and support and also for the fruitful cooperation we have experienced in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy while working on this report. Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, after this debate, it should be crystal clear that the issue of human rights is not just something to talk about on Sundays while wearing your Sunday best. Human rights must be integrated into all political cooperation that the EU is involved in. We need consistency, patience and a well thought-out strategy for turning noble words into concrete action that leads to results. I hope that the message has got through and that, in this House, we will soon receive specific proposals from the Council on how we can take this work forward together.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this disaster at the mine in Romania affects a large hydrogeological area with rivers and watercourses in Romania, Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria, The fact that 100 000 m3 of cyanide-poisoned water and large quantities of heavy metals have leaked out into the ecosystem is going to have appalling consequences for people in the area for a very long time to come, as well as for animal and plant life, agriculture, the tourist industry, biodiversity and the whole of the ecosystem. It is incomprehensible that an accident of this kind could have happened at all today. Is a substance as poisonous as cyanide really to be used in the mining industry and in the production of metals? The answer, of course, is an emphatic no. There must be no more manufacture or use of cyanide. I assume, therefore, that the EU will take the initiative and see to it that there is a total, worldwide ban on the manufacture and use of that substance. It has already been banned in most EU countries for a long time now. That an accident like this can happen at all is therefore an extremely shameful state of affairs. I have been informed that the Commissioner for the Environment, Margot Wallström, has travelled from Strasbourg to Romania in order to see for herself, on the spot, what has happened. My Group assumes that Margot Wallström will promise to provide aid to those communities which have been affected: economic aid, support in terms of environmental expertise and help in connection with the massive cleaning-up operation which is required. This highlights the need for something which we in the Group of the have been demanding for an extremely long time, namely a rapid reaction force offering protection to civilians in the event of major environmental and industrial catastrophes of this type. It also sheds light upon the low level of environmental requirements in some of the applicant States. We must demand that there should be no exceptions which could jeopardise people’s health and the ecosystems.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I support this proposal and justify it on the basis of the fact that quite a lot has been said about Iran recently. The situation is very delicate and a lot is happening there, but there has been discussion about it. We would very much like to see a place on the agenda to discuss the nuclear power plant at Temelin, as in many Member States, especially in Austria, obviously, as it is next door to it, the situation is very tense. I would like this proposal to make it possible to include the Temelin resolution on the agenda.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the common agricultural policy cannot stand still, it must adapt to changing circumstances. However, all proposals referring to agricultural policy must respect Articles 32 to 38 of the Treaty and, particularly, the objectives of Article 33, namely ensuring the rational development of production and 'a fair standard of living for the agricultural community'. They must not involve any re-nationalisation of the common agricultural policy, hence my voting strategy. I would be concerned at any budgetary solution which would entail transferring part of the aid for cereals to provide an incentive to produce protein crops as per Paragraph 31. Using land set-aside to produce these crops could jeopardise the blue box status of the area payments in WTO and result in switching production to set-aside land with existing protein land being used to produce more cereals. I am also opposed to the restoration of a differential, higher rate of aid for oil crops as per Paragraph 32 as this would mean a return to the limit of some 4.9 million hectares placed on oilseed production in the EU by the Blair House Agreement as part of the Uruguay Round. It is not clear, Madam President, what Paragraph 35 means. Arable area payments are based on a fixed rate per tonne, which applies throughout the EU and only differentiated according to historical yields in each Member State or region in order to decouple these payments from production. Application of a uniform rate of aid would disadvantage Northern regions, including Ireland, which traditionally has had higher yields. It is difficult to know what is in mind in the text of Paragraph 43. I do not support the increased use of intervention for any product, let alone certain fruit and vegetable products, neither does the Commission. Support should be channelled through strengthened producer organisations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for unfortunate technical reasons the amendments I made to my report have not been tabled. Before we vote on each individual amendment, I would like to explain straightaway that to ensure the whole package is coherent I have decided to table some of these amendments as oral amendments. There are two amendments relating to the proposed new draft of Article 3 on the Agency. There is a recital relating to the amendment of Article 29 on safety. There is also another amendment which details my wish to pose the question of funding. Ladies and gentlemen, I would welcome your views on this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I fear that we may waste a great deal of time on this debate on a point of order. I moved, quite clearly, to adjourn this debate and to resume it after the debate on competition. We have heard at least one speaker in favour and one speaker against. We know the arguments. I should now like to move to put it to the vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I just wish out point out, so that Members are not in any way confused, that it is Amendment 1 – the first vote on this report – which ascertains whether or not Parliament is in favour of the theory of setting up a health scheme for former Members. Those who are in favour will vote 'yes'; those who wish to abandon their former colleagues will vote 'no'. (Laughter)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, honourable members, it is quite right to make crisis management the main objective of European foreign and defence policy. After all, crises all over the planet are the predominant issue at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Of course, the current state of the world and the intricacies of the international system also raise other issues and questions which, in my view, form an integral part of the issues and problems which need to inform a specific proposal on European foreign policy. I should like to congratulate Mrs Lalumière because she has taken a huge step forward in her report. Not only has she made specific proposals, she has also highlighted the need to find a modus operandi and a modus vivendi for all the means proposed in order to implement European foreign policy. The problem with a European foreign policy is not quantitative. There is no problem with the figures. It is qualitative. The problem lies in the content. Having said this, may I suggest, Minister, that we act with the greatest caution when it comes to questions such as the integration of the Western European Union or relations with ΝΑΤΟ. I, fellow members, shall insist above all on the need to find a system, a modus operandi for all the proposals tabled in the House. Because foreign policy nowadays cannot and must not merely be the product of simple intergovernmental cooperation. On the contrary, it must be derived by operating a multi-dimensional structure and system within which the parliamentary aspect plays an important part.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the aim of policy regarding Iraq is not to avoid war at any price and it is not merely to see the return of weapons inspectors. It is to bring about the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's regime so that he is no longer a threat to us or indeed to his regional neighbours. We should have acted earlier. 11 September has now given us a heightened sensitivity to potential threats. If we let Saddam carry on in the way that he is, then what message does this send to others of malign intent? My criticism of the British Government is that it has left it far too late to fight the battle for public opinion and that its effort to build a coalition of political support among the Europeans has clearly been poor. The example of Iraq exposes yet again the frailty of common security policy in the European Union and not surprisingly it confirms a widely differing outlook in interests of the Member States of the European Union. Unlike Mr Poos, I do not see Mr Schröder as my spokesman. Some Members of this House have a reflex anti-Americanism. Instead, I had hoped that they would all be motivated by the need to enhance western security in a dangerous world. This requires strong and unassailable partnership with the United States. The Brok report reveals a different set of motives. It is all about empowering the European Union and boosting the role of the European Commission in particular. I disagree with this. It has nothing to do with enhancing the security of our citizens. Yesterday in Warsaw NATO Foreign Ministers welcomed proposals for a NATO military response force. 20 000 troops will be used for short-term, high-intensity combat operations. This would complement other NATO reaction forces already in existence and be a real incentive for NATO allies other than just the Americans and British to provide a small number of highly-trained and well-equipped forces ready to take on urgent tasks on a global basis. The European countries should forget the distractions of the European rapid reaction force separate from NATO and concentrate instead on improving military capabilities for alliance operations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this evening’s report, for which I thank Mrs Gröner very much, concerns a very important subject because it is at the heart of policies of equality between men and women. It is extremely difficult to implement what the European Parliament is proposing with gender mainstreaming, which I would translate into French as transversalité. First of all we need to recognise how difficult it is to make policies specific to women, which is why Parliament has a Committee on Women’s Rights, and, at the same time, ensuring that those policies have transverse effects across all committees and in all political issues. That is what this report is proposing. Europe is once again a pioneer in this area and we should be extremely mindful of this twofold problem. We should walk on two feet rather than just one: on the one hand, equality, with the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, and on the other hand, gender mainstreaming, which is extremely difficult. We all see this every day in our respective committees, outside the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. This report, for which I would again like to thank Mrs Gröner, proposes a two-stage process. On the one hand, it is about affecting decision making, ensuring that gender mainstreaming is applied at all levels within the European Parliament, as I believe it already is, and to a greater extent, in the Commission. On the other hand, the emphasis is not on parity but on equality of the sexes in all areas, thanks to this report, the adoption of which in the plenary I welcome, having myself tabled an amendment for the vote in plenary. I think that this second point is just as fundamental. That is why this report is important both for its pioneering nature and because it highlights the difficulty of this policy. Commissioner, the informal Council meeting last week had already practically ratified some proposals of this report and I am pleased about that. However, I am much less pleased about what is happening with enlargement. Malta has just gained the right to vote on enlargement despite its anti-abortion legislation and its restrictions on divorce, and these seem to have been accepted by Europe and by the fifteen Member States. It also seems that Poland is looking to retain the prerogatives of its laws on gender rights. I question the political will of our fifteen Member States. It has been said that it was important for us to set an example to future Member States, but if we cannot ask them to respect a certain number of established principles regarding women’s rights, I am greatly concerned.

Political group: GUE-NGL
However, that does not prevent us from speaking the language of our neighbours. We do so with belief in our own culture and also with love for the culture of others. We hope that this will be the norm in the Europe of tomorrow; speaking one’s own language, speaking the language of one’s neighbour; getting to know one another better and on that basis building the foundations of a Europe of all languages and, above all, a Europe of mutual respect.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in 18 years I have also heard Mr Balfe speak on very many occasions and almost always I have held opinions on the subjects he has spoken about. Today I have the opportunity to speak on an amendment to the Kuckelkorn report which he has presented, in which Mr Balfe once more asks that he be treated as a European official. But he is not telling the whole truth. He forgot to mention that European officials – a body from which I am proud to come – only have one social security system. The honourable Members – amongst whom I now find myself – also only have one. He is asking for another one, so if he wants to go on asking for privileges in addition to those provided by the laws and regulations of his own country, let him do so. But since – as I hope and believe – he will not come back as an MEP in the next session, I urge Mr Balfe to prepare himself for an examination to become a European official and thereby obtain everything he has repeatedly been asking for.

Political group: PSE