GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I welcome this report and some of those we have seen going through Parliament in the last few months. Indeed, I welcome Mrs Schörling's report that we will be voting on in the plenary session in Strasbourg in a couple of weeks' time. We are laying down a solid body of work, a solid body of information and some very important precedents as we move towards the setting up and launching of the new chemicals policy that we expect to come from the Commission very soon. What is becoming clear to us all is quite simply that present analysis of chemicals and the present chemicals on the market are not satisfactory. In the case of many chemicals on the market at the moment, we quite simply do not know how dangerous or how safe they are. We need a new system. We welcome the new system that is coming and, if you like, in the very dying moments of the old system, I have to say I can remember more of these amendments to the original directive than I care to remember, although I have not been here quite long enough to remember the original directive, and I have always found that we have not been sufficiently consistent in what we have done. I would agree with some of the remarks made by Mrs Schörling. We need a new chemicals policy. We are waiting for the new chemicals policy, Commission – where is it?

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, as you know, organised crime is growing very strongly. It is mainly based outside the Union, but it is attacking our citizens and can cross internal frontiers inside the Union with total facility. There are record amounts of heroin coming in, cocaine, attacks on the Internet increasing every day, trafficking of illegal immigrants, of women and of children. There are vast amounts of money laundering, enormous quantities of counterfeit goods and currency hitting us as well. You know this as well as I. It is very frightening. However, our law enforcement agencies are only national or local and they cannot cross our internal frontiers. National politicians do not get credit for fighting crime outside their own countries. All in all, we are failing to fight international organised crime and that is why it is getting stronger. I have just presented you with a pamphlet. I also gave the press a copy this afternoon at a press conference. It is called 'Europe Needs an FBI'. Commissioner, I echo the other sentiments – you have been a very good Commissioner in this area. I hope, whether you stay here or go on to something else, that you will help to stir the national politicians who so far have lacked the will to muster the necessary weapons to fight international crime.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is, of course, obvious that, once they have acceded, and even now with a view to their accession, all these countries are obliged to safeguard the free movement and establishment of persons. And in this sense, the concept of refugee will no longer have any meaning between these countries or, of course, between these countries and the present 15 members of the Union. If that is how things stand, does it make sense for there to still be refugees of Greek descent in some of these countries, such as the FYROM, who cannot enter Greece? This is a sad legacy of the civil war. Sad for all of us. And yet this war ended 54 years ago. The call for their right of free entry into Greece is supported by a whole host of people of all political persuasions, as I found out for myself during meetings in Florina and elsewhere. Is this issue included in your general position? Do you intend to settle it soon?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are unable to vote for this report. The European Union should actually place social issues at the heart of the building of Europe. Social rights should determine economic choices, and not the other way around. This is why, when it comes to social protection, we are opposed to schemes copied from the Luxembourg process which run counter to this rationale: broad economic guidelines, then convergence criteria and, finally, social issues, dealt with as the last resort. The European Union should proclaim one general principle, to wit, that the social rights acquired in Member States may not be restricted. Any Community intervention should aim to complement and to harmonise existing guarantees according to the highest common denominator. In order to strengthen the funding of social security systems, we need a policy of general wage increase, the establishment of a minimum legal wage in each Member State. In order to fight poverty, entitlement to an income and to employment are inalienable rights. Finally, in order to avoid health being treated in any way as a commodity, the European Union should declare itself clearly opposed to pension funds and to a situation where private insurance companies have access to the health system. I sincerely hope, in conclusion, that social Europe cannot be satisfied with mere words and pious hopes. For millions of people the situation is too tragic for that.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to widen the debate and include the situation in Mitrovica. In cooperation with Europe, the international community rebuilt the hospital there too, but it is located in the northern part of the city, thus prohibiting access to Albanian Kosovars. This means that medical aid is still denied to the Albanian Kosovars. This is also happening elsewhere in the country, causing tension between the Albanian Kosovars and Serbs, making for a situation where nobody trusts anybody anymore and where Albanians do not want to be looked after by Serbs and vice versa. I understand very well what you are saying and you are right: the European Union should work in a wider context of international cooperation. But where will you place the emphasis? What will you do to ensure that Albanian Kosovars too can be cared for in a hospital, including that in Mitrovica?

Political group: Verts-ALE
At the recent Thessaloniki Summit, certain very worrying decisions were taken on the process of European integration. The most notable of these relate to the Convention and the so-called European constitution, to confirmation of the immigration decisions taken at Seville, which aim to create a ‘fortress Europe’, and to the maintenance of the monetarist policies of the Stability Pact and of neoliberal objectives for reforming the labour markets and social and health services, as well as for privatising most public services. We do not believe that the aforesaid European Constitution can serve as a basis for the work of the Intergovernmental Conference scheduled for October. This conference represents a fresh qualitative leap forward in the process of integration, consolidating the fundamental bases and strands set out in the Treaty of Maastricht. These aspects were developed later at Amsterdam, but above all at Nice, whose treaty came into force a few months ago. The proposals for altering the European Union’s institutional model are completely unacceptable, since they strengthen the federalist nature of its institutions and its domination by the major powers. I am thinking especially of proposals to end the rotating presidency of the European Council, to elect a president according to rules which give preeminence to the larger countries, to end the practice of each country having a Commissioner, and to extend qualified majority voting at the expense of the right of veto.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, there are two aspects of the introduction of the euro which have been mentioned by Commissioner Solbes and other speakers: the undeniable success and future prospects of the euro. I will use the short amount of time available to me to concentrate on the second aspect, for the euro really is an open door to the future. Indeed, I feel that, in addition to its great symbolic significance, the introduction of the euro will not bring immediate short-term effects for our economy or in terms of the rate of inflation; however I do feel that it provides Europe with a wonderful opportunity to develop in a climate of stability, particularly as regards the medium and long term. In the medium term, Europe has the problem of how to disengage its economy from the US cycle. Indeed, still today, European development is heavily influenced by exports and, therefore, to a great extent by US demand. This being the case, the current recession in the United States could impact on us rather than be offset by our capacity for independent growth. This capacity for development of internal demand can benefit greatly from the integration of monetary policy, but it does not depend on this alone. It needs to be boosted by an economic policy which combines monetary policy with fiscal policy and, most importantly, with a policy of research and innovative investment such as that outlined at Lisbon, although this policy has not actually been pursued. The problem exists in the longer term of the euro as a potential world-wide reserve currency on an equal footing with the dollar. A Parliamentary resolution has already pointed out that the central guideline for the exchange policy should not be a strong or weak euro but a stable euro, varying, of course, within a range in a way that is not destabilising. To this end, it will be necessary, sooner or later, to promote some form of agreement between the US and European monetary policies for our mutual and shared benefit. It is true, then, that the euro does represent a major opportunity, but it is an opportunity which has not yet been exploited. This potential role – as the previous speakers have said too – must be fully realised by politics, by Europe’s political capacity, by a government responsible for the economy which promotes the conditions for autonomous development within Europe and which ensures effective management of exchange outside Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I very much appreciate this report by Mr Katiforis on fisheries management and nature conservation in the marine environment. Let us not forget that fish are at the very basis of our food chain and that the first ‘environmental’ disaster, Minamata disease, occurred in 1958 in Japan owing to the fact that fish were polluted by mercury. We should therefore very carefully monitor pollution from industrial activity, but also from domestic activity. I do not believe that ejecting emissions at sea, and particularly in a closed environment like the Mediterranean, when we want to clean up purification plants, is a good way to clean up water. We should pay particular attention to telluric pollution, to development, to the urbanisation of coastal areas, etc. But we should also think about restoring the environment and, for example, solving the problems associated with caulerpa taxifolia, and the areas of posidonia that are disappearing and which must therefore be protected. They say that if you want something done, it is best to do it yourself and so the users of the sea, the fishermen, must be very attentive. It will certainly be necessary to reduce the amount of fish caught and the elimination of the surplus capacity between 30 and 40%, as proposed by the Commission, has been very greatly watered down by the Council, to between 5 and 10%. It will also be necessary to undertake selective fishing and, together with my colleague, Nol Mamre, who is also a former Member of the European Parliament, we would request a moratorium on the use of deep-sea trawlers in Community waters in the Bay of Biscay, to the south of the 47th parallel north, because we have had enough of seeing dolphins being washed up and dying on our beaches, particularly at the moment. So we must practise selective fishing. Aquaculture should also be monitored. Read Mr Katiforis’s report again, in which he says that in Scotland, for example, 17 000 salmon are infected by the disease that I just mentioned, and impact upon the environment. Let us therefore take great care with work in a closed environment. The Council of Europe is coming before the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on 22 March to speak about the research work that must be undertaken, particularly in the marine environment and, more precisely, the scientific and economic challenges of exploiting the oceans. Ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you to come and take part in this discussion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would first of all like to welcome the Commission and thank them for putting forward this Green Paper, which has an enormous responsibility, not only for the present but also for the future. We are only beginning, but globalisation is already here and it is obvious that companies play a major role in social matters. They have rights but they must also have obligations to contribute to a fairer society that is more in keeping with the defence of human rights in the world, improving the environment, combating discrimination and in favour of basic and fundamental working standards. It is wrong to think that, as the Howitt report suggests, it would be a burden for companies to introduce compulsory social responsibility, councils that are open to participation from all, not only shareholders, but also what are called stake holders, and a social and environmental report, because those companies in the global society that act according to those rules will be more profitable and will be able to operate much more easily in the world. Paradoxically, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, Mrs Lucas, withdrew her name from the opinion. However, the chairman of the committee cannot withdraw his or her name, so I am presenting it on behalf of the committee, but I am in fact in the same position as Mrs Lucas in that I am convinced of the need for the social and environmental report to be compulsory. I therefore fully support the Howitt report from the committee responsible.

Political group: PSE
I voted against giving a discharge to the Secretary-General because he gave misleading information to the political decision-making bodies about the purchase of the ASP building in Brussels. This wrongly gave the impression that the Council and the Commission had agreed to the building being financed with the help of the then property developer. Furthermore, this wrongly gave the impression that financing the building with the help of the property developer was an indirect form of financing. In fact, in 1988 Parliament directly indebted itself to a banking consortium headed by WestLB, for amounts of ECU 472 million and BEF 7 billion, without first publishing an invitation to tender for the contract in the Official Journal. The Court of Auditors also found that the relevant financial regulations had been infringed. - Papayannakis report (A5-0193/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Myller report as it has been submitted to us to vote on, is a report without a concrete plan of action. The vagueness that characterises the report contains the danger of focussing only on a number of eyecatching items, such as the introduction of the CO2 tax and the Kyoto standard. This report therefore overlooks the central question and specifically the question of how the environment can be better protected than has been the case up to now. Thus far, concentration has been focused mainly on raising charges rather than offering concrete incentives to live in a more environmentally aware way. In addition they are completely neglecting the absolute necessity of achieving harmonisation at international level, because for as long as we are incapable of doing that, it will create a negative effect, mainly for Europe, and it will prove an obstacle to trade. For all these reasons, I abstained in the vote.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on behalf of my group I have always made an effort to support dialogue between this Parliament and the Cuban authorities and people. But I believe, Mr President, that this Parliament should not fail to raise its voice in these circumstances, when there has been a wave of arrests of peaceful dissidents, of defenders of human rights and independent journalists, such as Raúl Rivero and Ricardo González Alonso, for whom the prosecutor is asking for sentences of between 20 years and life, within the context of a summary trial, which neither the press nor diplomatic representatives accredited in Havana have been able to attend. Mr President, my group and I are aware of and we support the initiative presented by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to hold a debate on this situation in May, but I believe, Mr President, that this Parliament would not be doing its duty, and would be doing little to serve the cause of freedom, unless it raises its voice to condemn these events and all acts of violence which have taken place or which may take place in Cuba, to communicate its solidarity with the families of the victims and the people arrested, and to be very firm in its fundamental demand for freedom.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has done me the honour of asking me to present its opinion. We cooperated with the rapporteur, Mr Perry, and I am in the happy position of saying that we have taken a common approach. The Commission needs to pay particular attention to Mr Perry’s individual proposals if we are to take another step forward on the interconnected problems linked to the whole of the audiovisual sector. This year’s report has a factor of additional interest compared with previous reports, because it proposes in its annex a programme of work which makes provision for dialogue to develop with the individual national agencies, such as radio and television organisations, independent regulatory authorities etc. The objective is to reform the directive so that it can monitor rapid technological progress, but it also has other individual objectives. All these objectives mean that a difficult job awaits the Commission and it must convince us of how it is going to work in order for all the necessary adjustments to come about. Another conclusion on which we more or less agree is the dual role of the audiovisual media. They are an economic commodity, which is why they are linked to the issue of competition, to the knowledge society being promoted by the Lisbon policy. Full coordination is therefore needed here. At the same time, they are a cultural commodity and their promotion needs to take account, on the one hand, of the public interest, such as protecting minors and safeguarding cultural diversity; on the other hand, however, they must take horizontal account of the European interest, which is to safeguard the European identity against non-European standards, especially American standards. We need to realise here that the danger from the commercial deficit on the audiovisual media market in comparison with the corresponding American products is directly linked to the future of Europe. The dialogue has started. It may be public. I would say, however, that it needs greater publicity and greater visibility. In view of all this, the reform of the Television without Frontiers directive must be one of the most serious concerns of all three institutions of the European Union because, over and above clarifying disputed concepts, such as independent producers etc., we need to guarantee the availability of digital options to a wide public and promote the cohesion of the policy of the audiovisual industry.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I too would like to extend my thanks to the rapporteur for what was an extremely difficult job. If we had more time we might have been willing to have a bigger fight with the Council over some of the amendments. While it is true that this is a step forward in terms of codification and gives greater clarity to citizens, the approach seems somewhat begrudging: the common position seems to grant a right with one hand, only to add an enormous set of qualifications to that right with the other. In a sense, many of those rights become nationalised rather than considered from a Community perspective. Previous speakers have been right about the climate in which this debate has taken place. Some see it as a way of shutting down the possibilities of free movement unless people are seen not to be a 'burden on the state', in the language of the 1930s. Part of the issue is that people are seen primarily as economic individuals rather than as citizens who have the right to free movement. There are still problems for people who are in marriages or partnerships with non-EU nationals. I am well aware that even people working within the institutions will continue to face certain problems because of such relationships. People have spoken about the issue of partnerships. It was interesting to listen to the earlier debate this evening, in the context of International Women's Day, during which time after time speakers talked about the fact that there is no single definition of a family, that things are changing and moving on. The social security systems of Member States certainly recognise different sorts of stable relationships – stable units. But we still face problems. I can foresee certain equality of treatment issues coming before the European Court of Justice. Mr Evans raised the issue of expulsions. For us this too is problematic. It calls into question what is meant by 'permanent residence', when it can be taken away from someone. Others have mentioned that this might be a step forward, but it still does not take us to where we want to be. My Group can accept the common position. We welcome certain amendments put forward by other Groups. But this is certainly is not the end of the fight in terms of free movement for European citizens and their partners.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, to the statement used as the leit motif or motto of Porto Alegre, ‘Another world is possible’, we should add the issue of whether the world, with its current tendencies, without changes or reforms in view of globalisation, can develop in a peaceful manner. The events of recent months are not exactly cause for optimism in this regard. Just as the strategic mantra of the Cold War was deterrence, that is, the threat of mutual destruction, now, within a plural and contradictory framework, it appears that the belief is arising that the dominant concept must, in a disturbed and dangerous world, which is increasingly insecure, be that of prevention. Nevertheless, we are seeing a growing and increasingly visible conflict over the form effective prevention policies may take. On the one hand, we see the response of a form of globalisation resulting from deregulated market capitalism, the unilateral leadership of the strongest and the new doctrine of preventive, dissuasive military action and ad hoc coalitions. On the other hand, we see increasingly large sectors with very opposing ideological positions, but which agree that, in view of the globalised world, the response must be a multilateral policy of democratic rules, global reforms and peace, particularly in view of the threat of terrorism, stating that what we essentially have to do is remove the sources of hate and humiliation in the world. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that, in the face of this emergence of a world public opinion demanding reforms of globalisation, we need a realistic vision, broad consensus on reform and concrete and financially viable initiatives. Europe has a vital interest in this issue. It must exert a world influence and be fully aware of its global responsibilities. Its original raison d’être was peace, following the devastating wars of the twentieth century. Over the last fifty years, it has perhaps been the first effective supranational response to the challenges of globalisation. In order to pursue this development, we must establish ourselves as a global player, with a more united and powerful foreign policy, despite all the current difficulties, because these movements, this global civil society, is increasingly demanding a Europe, a united Europe, and we must not disappoint.

Political group: PSE