GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
A common policy on temporary protection for displaced persons is to be welcomed, especially so as to ensure that all Member States are involved in taking care of people forced to flee from regions affected by war. However, it is important that such temporary protection, which applies for two years at the most, should not constitute a threat to the right to seek asylum. The right to asylum under the Geneva Convention and to a permanent residence permit must always be safeguarded. Temporary protection in the EU’s Member States must not prevent people from seeking asylum as soon as they arrive in the Member State responsible or during the period that the temporary protection applies. - Deprez report (A5-0066/2001)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I approve of the Méndez de Vigo-Seguro report, which represents an excellent summary of the work of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The reunification of Europe is indeed a historic turning point, but a turning point which calls for a far-reaching reform of the institutions of the Union. The Nice Summit exhausted the intergovernmental method which necessarily involves difficult mediation between national interests. What is needed now is a constituent convention to define, before the European elections, a model capable of guaranteeing democracy and efficiency in Union action. The report avoids exacerbating the argument about the Treaty of Nice, but clearly condemns its limitations. However, we cannot remain silent, waiting for Laeken, at a time when influential spokesmen of national governments are addressing issues fundamental to the future of the Union. Chancellor Schröder has spoken of a European federation, Prime Minister Jospin of a Europe of nations. I do not know what Aznar and Berlusconi will say, but I do know that the specific problems of the Community and the reform of the institutions are two sides of the same coin, and I do know that Europe must become a political area with a democratic soul. Parliament cannot stand on the sidelines of this debate. The future of Europe cannot be left entirely to market forces and confrontation between national governments. Parliament must promote a debate going beyond the pragmatism that ties the hands of the national governments. Because of the things we have heard, that debate also tells us we must be braver and more forward-looking if we claim to be realists.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with regard to this resolution which speaks of solidarity with the Venezuelan people, I wish to express my total agreement with certain ideas. Firstly, I would ask that aid should reach the people and groups who are most in need of it. As a group we are clearly not opposed to this talk of SMBs and industries in general, but this eagerness to talk of these sectors seems excessive while we do not talk of other more needy groups. In particular – as Mr Salafranca has pointed out – the effectiveness of the aid measures must not suffer as a result of a lack of human resources. Secondly, we denounce the fact that something so essential to our group as incorporating the people affected into the drawing up and application of aid measures has not been accepted. This is necessary so that we do not find that things have been done which are not needed or not wanted. Finally, last but not least, we should reflect on our methods of production and our consumption of natural resources, because this lies behind these catastrophes, and we should not be regularly lamenting them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Marset Campos, for his report, which does indeed very well summarise the decisive conclusions resulting from this Parliament's work in recent years. This makes it a very important document in the discussions on the subject of Belarus. It might well be important to reiterate in this context that it is not the European institutions that are isolating Belarus, but the country itself, and the dictator who has plunged it into crisis and who prohibits and represses every form of democratic expression. We are a long way from being able to take up normal relations with this country. On that, Commissioner, I agree with you entirely. Despite that, the reality is that Belarus is our neighbour, and we must have an interest in overcoming its self-imposed isolation. If that cannot be done in the context of normal relations, the need still remains for the European Union to develop a strategy for dealing with Belarus. All the same, I think it would be a good thing if you were to turn your attention to item 9, which demands that we should adopt a strategy for dealing with Belarus. To do so would of course result in consideration of where we should have recourse to such important diplomatic instruments as the carrot and the stick, or what sort of instruments we should apply, where we should impose sanctions and where we should offer support. The instruments we have had up to now are inappropriate, so we must modify them to our purposes as regards Belarus. Item 9 sets out with the utmost clarity what they are to be modified to do and in which areas more needs to be done than was done within the last programme. That is what this item is for, and it is my belief that it thus gives the Commission very, very good indications of what to do. I would also like to reiterate that the local elections and our observation of them will be of great importance to future relations. I hope that this is where we can enjoy very good strategic cooperation with the Commission. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
The report paints a relatively accurate picture of the ΕU, far from its made-up profile as a model of respect for human rights, as it often appears from its propagandists. It contains numerous critical references to the situation as regards fundamental rights in the ΕU, treatment of prisoners, slavery and forced labour, protection of personal data, freedom of expression and information, rights of asylum, racism and xenophobia, discrimination based on sex, disability, worker' rights, rights of third country nationals and fair access to justice. Nonetheless, this self-criticism is undermined, in that it takes as its criterion compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which still lags behind the provisions of numerous constitutions, including the Greek constitution. Our basic objection, however, concerns how fundamental rights, such as the right to work, free health care, education, welfare and so on are addressed. At a time when big business is attacking workers' rights on all fronts, to consider that the problem can be addressed not by fighting but with new EU directives and measures or by applying existing ones is, at best, self-delusion. As far as women's rights are concerned, the report ignores the fact that there cannot be equality in social and family life unless the capitalist core is removed from EU policy. That is why we MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece abstained from the vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I acknowledge that Mr Bourlanges is one of the most learned Members of this House. Consequently, I am stunned by his bold declaration that Turkey is not a European country. To say that, Mr Bourlanges, would be like saying that Byzantium is and has never been European. Go on pilgrimage to Ravenna and then we can speak about it. This issue has nothing to do with the past, however, and everything to do with the future. The question is whether or not we want Turkey to be part of European integration. It is not history that will take us forward, but our own will and that of our peoples. I share the concerns held by Mr Bourlanges and others. I am one of those hoping for serious debates to take place, including in this House, so that we can take decisions based on careful consideration. I would say, however, that those who have expressed their views have done so prematurely, and at a time when any reservations we may have about Turkey, be they well-founded or otherwise, undermine the difficult task to which the EU is committed, alongside the UN, that of finding a solution to the Cyprus question. This is not the right time, therefore, to be discussing such matters and less still to be taking decisions, which is why I unreservedly endorse the proposal before us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, to clarify this matter I would like the words 'and their constitutional regions' inserted after 'Member States'. This is a matter of real concern in many parts of Europe, including Scotland. The President established that at least 32 Members objected to the oral amendment. (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Report (A5-0380/2002) by Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the Commission communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy ('Roadmap') (COM(2002) 181 – C5-0330/2002 – 2002/2174(COS)) Before the vote on Amendment No 23:

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, today, on International Women’s Day, I wish not only to draw attention to the entire issue of discrimination against women, but also to raise the issue of women who are victims of war. Today, we must remember the suffering of women who are victims of war, in Iraq, in Palestine, and in so many other countries. I hope that we use this day to remind people of the need to eradicate war and to contribute to ending these conflicts, such as the illegal occupation of Iraq, the humiliation of the Palestinian people and of women who are suffering on a daily basis as a result of this unjust war. I also wish to remind you that the World Social Forum has called on us all to take part, on 20 March, in the demonstrations against the war, to safeguard peace, on the first anniversary of the war waged against Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom and their allies and to call for an end of the occupation of Iraq, to call for peace.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, Mr President, it is true that your news and your message are extremely disappointing when we think of the emotional concern shown at the damage caused by the storms last December. Mr Barnier was very emphatic in his speech, assuring us that the European Union was, in effect, going to do something to help the victims. By victims I mean the small-scale foresters who have been ruined, but I am also referring to the small seaside businesses who now have to face the influx of tourists. Well, now we know that forests do not fall within the remit of the European Union. So we are going to use part of the Structural Funds to finance emergency aid in the event of natural disasters. Yet we are well aware that this will take time. And, in this regard, may I say that the European Union’s policy consists of robbing Peter to pay Paul. We cannot support this policy, for it amounts to depriving some to provide for others, to the detriment of future projects. In my opinion, this is really not good enough, and we expect tangible measures from the Commission. The citizens are calling for immediate action.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We do not consider that the postal service is an issue to be dealt with by the EU, even if the proposal following processing by the committee looks considerably better than the Commission’s original proposal. We feel that the Member States themselves are much more competent to take care of these matters. However, we are happy to see inter-state solutions in this area. Neither do we feel that there is any need or necessity to privatise, expose to competition or deregulate postal services. In Sweden a number of these proposals have already been implemented and we can already see that this has exacerbated the situation. Regional inequalities have arisen and the situation within the postal service has deteriorated – not least for the employees. - de Roo report (A5-0378/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
What the President-in-Office of the Council has just said completely contradicts what the Commissioner said yesterday, the day before yesterday and on previous occasions in this House. The Council’s view is correct: payments to farmers are at stake. It is truly outrageous that aid is not paid for nuts – which means they cannot continue to be grown – or that farmers are not being given what they are asking for: a reduction in diesel oil prices. Nevertheless, what the Commission does is take funds intended for agriculture, and which have already been approved under Agenda 2000, at the Berlin Summit, as if there were a surplus, and divert them to foreign policy. Although I am in favour of aid to Kosovo, I am not in favour – in fact I consider it an outrage – of taking money intended for agriculture, approved under Agenda 2000 – since if we do this it shows that it has been nothing but a smokescreen – and dedicating it to foreign policy. My question is as follows: what do we do when the Council says something diametrically opposed to what the Commission says? Mr President-in-Office of the Council, what do we do in this event?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, only last week did the annual BAMST workshop take place at the University of Ghent. BAMST stands for Belgian Association for Meat Science and Technology. This year’s theme was traceability, a means to guarantee the quality of meat and meat products. Professor Jan Van Hoof gave a clear overview of the situation in Belgium in terms of traceability of meat and it should be said: there is finally some good news from the Belgian federation. Together with France and Finland, we are the only country which has completed the implementation of the present directive. However, what the Council and Commission are trying to dish up here today beggars belief. I support the observations made by all those who have intervened in the debate so far. This joint protest from our Committees on Agriculture and the Environment ensures that we want to put a stop to the Commission’s proposals and rightly so. A three-year delay for a compulsory regulation is unacceptable to us. Even a one year delay is. Let there be no mistake: we want the compulsory regulation in place by 1 September. Let this be a warning to the Council. If necessary, we will call on the Court of Justice. This is a violation of Community Law; a gross insult. I therefore urge all those present to fully approve rapporteur Papayannakis’ report. We will take a hard line on this. After all, we want to use compulsory labelling as a means to help those who want to restore consumer confidence in meat. This should happen sooner rather than later.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, it is always a pleasure to welcome you to the House, but I too regret that Mr Monti is not present to give further explanations regarding the issues that have been raised. In fact, and I think that other Members here today feel the same, we are not at all sure whether your colleagues, and in particular Mr Bolkestein, have briefed you adequately, and entirely transparently, with regard to their intentions. Those intentions, which I would describe as secret, because we have the impression of not knowing exactly what they are, seem to consist of continuing with the dismantling of the European postal services without going via the European Parliament. That is the matter at issue here: the Commission is acting outside the codecision procedure, in other words circumventing the compulsory route via the European Parliament in order to legislate on the future of the European postal services. I am not going to repeat the many arguments that we have already set out here, on numerous occasions, in order to defend public services and the European postal services, to explain – once again other Members have drawn attention to it ahead of me – the essential role played by the public postal service today in keeping our regions alive. We are sticking to those arguments, because this is the message that the citizens of Europe are sending us and it is our job to maintain that position. We cannot help but take note of the Commission’s reply, but what it says to us is that the Commission has withdrawn its programme for this year. Does that mean that this matter will be transferred to next year’s programme? There is always, as I have pointed out, the possibility that the Commission will go back to its draft following the Green Paper. What would that mean? Nothing is clear! We are certainly not reassured by this, particularly since, as I have just said to you, we are perfectly well aware of Mr Bolkestein’s intentions. It is essential, therefore, to proceed via legal channels, in other words via a European directive that can be discussed here, so that we can see what the Commission’s real intentions are. I should like to say to you, Commissioner, that what is at stake here is respect for the work of each one of us, respect for the work of the Commission and respect for the work of Parliament, which represents our citizens. I should also like to emphasise, once again, because we have the feeling that the message has not been fully understood, that postal services, as Mr Savary has already said, are something that our citizens rely on. We cannot, therefore, endorse any draft which does not go through the procedure of a directive discussed in this House.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in relation to the Commission's work programme on enlargement we have, as we would expect, a very thorough and indeed a very formidable programme to achieve in the next 12 months, in which the Commission has to address a large number of areas including, in particular, monitoring the progress of the candidate countries. Can we be assured that even when the treaties are signed there will be no winding down of DG Enlargement? That will ensure that we have the staff to carry out the monitoring process, which is still important right up to accession. Secondly, the focus will inevitably move on to the stability of our borders, as the Commission says in its programme, but it does not say what new steps we are actually going to take. We talk about relations with Moldova, for example. Moldova is very close to being defined as a failed state. How are we actually going to deal with it and with Ukraine, with which we have still tried to have relations? In relation to Bosnia and Kosovo, are we simply going to carry on as before, or are we going to look at enhancing our work there in order to better secure our borders? Finally, we put emphasis on the CFSP in preparing the Commission's role in that area. However, defence procurement and securing the future of European defence industries are important. To that end we have previously had action plans from the Commission on how it can use its instruments to support that process. Commissioner Liikanen keeps promising me that he will put forward a further action plan, but I see no reference to that in the annual programme. Are we going to see an action plan on future defence industries and on defence procurement, and are we going to see the Commission using the instruments it has available?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin, as some previous speakers have done, by thanking Mr Savary – the author of these two reports – for his work on achieving harmonisation, which has been difficult, but which has looked to the future. His task has certainly been difficult, and this has been demonstrated by the conflicting interests expressed during tonight’s speeches. As a Spanish MEP, I would have preferred the task to have been achieved with greater flexibility and certain technical specifications which affect structural issues within the railway system not to have been applied. I am referring specifically to the Spanish rail gauge, which, since this is a problem affecting the basic railway structure, we believe would involve a costly and slow renovation, and its particular circumstances need to be taken into account. This means that it should not be regulated by means of the so-called ‘specific cases’, subject to committee decisions, but that, on the contrary, we should consider the possibility that automatic derogations should apply depending on the incompatibility of these technical specifications with existing lines. We therefore hope that you will be receptive to this request because, otherwise, we should bear in mind that all the projects, all the development plans for the rail networks affected by these specifications, would be subject to difficult conditions, and this would have a negative effect, since it would create uncertainty in relation to the planned investment programmes themselves.

Political group: PPE-DE
Three points: first of all on this important issue of SMP. We have made a stab at trying to enhance and improve the text but I am concerned, as was Mr Harbour, that we may actually have complicated matters, so whilst I feel that we have added a menu of additional concepts, a mélange, a pot-pourri of new tools to deploy under the title of SMP, I wonder whether we should perhaps be a little more bold in the second reading and perhaps think of drawing back where we consider, on reflection, those new concepts might actually be adding to confusion rather than diminishing confusion. Second point: NRAs. This is really a point I would like to address to the Council, not that there is much point in doing it here this evening, but the Member States cannot have it both ways. They cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot wish to see a vibrant pan-European telecoms market established and yet not have any meaningful criteria attached to the way in which NRAs operate. That is an unsustainable position and, politically, we should push the Member States harder and harder on this. There need to be clear criteria of independence and autonomy and proper resourcing which we need to really push upon the Member States, and not be swayed by their slightly misleading claims that it is all to do with subsidiarity and therefore none of our business. Finally, on the all-important Article 6 of the Paasilinna report and the vexed Amendment No 33, which Mrs Niebler spoke about earlier, we should perhaps have another look at it in second reading. I am not sure if you have the balance right. I am clear at this stage – and my group will vote against it – that those provisions should not cover ‘must carry’ provisions and we will be voting against that section of that amendment tomorrow. Finally, I wonder whether as legislators we really do make good telecoms junkies, to quote Mel Read. I just leave that as a question mark.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I would first of all like to support your words and express our complete agreement with them. Please allow me to propose, on behalf of my group, that this very important issue, which involves the responsibilities of the European Union, as you have correctly pointed out, be included in the debate which we are going to hold tomorrow in connection with the Biarritz Summit. The situation in the Middle East will clearly be one of the issues dealt with at this summit, even though it is informal. I would also like to stress, as you have rightly pointed out, that there has been unacceptable provocation by a leader of the Israeli extreme right known for his extremist activities in the past. I also believe that we must address our Israeli friends in the frankest possible terms and tell them that a democratic and legitimate government, such as theirs, cannot use gunfire and tanks to fight children and youths throwing stones. This is absolutely disproportionate and in no way helps the peace process. (Applause) Madam President, I believe that, after the visit – on your invitation – of the Presidents of the Israeli and Palestinian assemblies last month, we have sufficient moral legitimacy to address our partners in the Middle East in the strongest terms, while offering them our services.

Political group: PSE