GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, two years ago, almost to the day, Parliament’s ad hoc delegation to North Korea, which I chair jointly with Mr Gawronski and Mr Ford, took part in discussions in Pyongyang. The aim of this step was to support the Sunshine Policy pioneered by the South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung, who also had the backing of the international community. We were preceded by the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Allbright. All these steps shared the aim of normalising the situation in North Korea through constructive dialogue. It should be pointed out that since then almost all our Member States as well as the European Union itself have established diplomatic relations with North Korea. Today, of course, we are disappointed, not to say furious, about the revelations made by the North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister, the very man who was our main contact, regarding the secret development of the country’s nuclear programme for military ends. We must react strongly to this deceitful approach adopted by North Korea, which is in flagrant violation of the agreements concluded since 1994. We would ask the Commission and the Council to reassess the KEDO project in light of these events. To this end, we must coordinate our stance with that of the main partners in the KEDO Council, in other words, South Korea, Japan and the United States. We must demand full compliance with the agreements concluded and ongoing inspection by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. What we want is for President Kim Dae-Jung’s Sunshine Policy to be implemented, but for this to take place, dialogue must be pursued, but this dialogue must also be frank and fair. In particular, North Korea must be aware that this dialogue can only take place if it declares itself ready to stop – once and for all - any development of nuclear weapons, proceeds to dismantle this programme swiftly and measurably, agrees to ongoing controls and inspections and accepts and complies with international agreements.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this motion is both topical and urgent. It is urgent because we have not yet defined how to control the spread of small arms and light weapons, nor have we strengthened the code to cover conventional arms. Death and destruction can be caused by almost any means. I saw recently the mass grave in Rwanda of up to half a million people bludgeoned to death by physical weapons, called machetes: just a single weapon in the hand of one man killing person after person. Half a million people were genocidally slaughtered by this method. Some time ago, 25 000 people died as a result of ground-to-ground missiles in the marshlands of southern Iraq. I saw where they had been killed by just one ground-to-ground missile. So death and destruction can come by simple or complex means. We have to address that. That is the urgency. The topicality of the motion comes because the year 2000 has now been declared by the United Nations to be the year for peace and to usher in a decade of UN aims for peace. Let us, in this motion, also put our hands behind that effort.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is just one thing to add to the important points raised by Mrs Klaß. The whole incident was filmed. So the time has come for you, Mr President, to take disciplinary measures against everyone who was in the vicinity on behalf of the security service and failed to intervene. You should also file charges with the relevant criminal authorities on the grounds of failure to provide assistance! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The Wall Street Journal came to the conclusion that the shift by Mr Bush to declare these steel tariffs in March, followed by his agricultural subsidies and his protectionism on timber with Canada, was the turning-point from being a free-trade regime to a protectionist, America-first regime. Would you think this is the case or are your friend, Mr Zoellick, and Mr Bush still genuinely free trade?

Political group: PPE-DE
It was at the European Council meeting in Helsinki in December 1999 that the European Union decided to grant Turkey the status of candidate country for accession to the European Union and to establish an accession partnership and a single financial framework with a view to helping Turkey's application to progress in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria. It is a sine qua non that these criteria are met before the accession negotiations can start, and we must never forget this. The progress reports established by the European Commission are therefore extremely important. Today we are discussing the 1999 progress report. Following the example of the rapporteur, we are bound to admit that Turkey has progressed on certain levels and that there are positive signs. I am primarily thinking of the resumption of the political dialogue in the Association Council, which met on 11 April 2000 after being suspended for three years, and the establishment of eight subcommittees entrusted with the task of setting priorities for incorporation of the acquis communautaire, the signature by Turkey on 15 August and 8 September 2000 of four important UN conventions, on political, civil, social and cultural rights respectively, which must be ratified as soon as possible so that human rights and democratic pluralism may be guaranteed in that country, the Turkish Council of Ministers’ adoption of the report presented by the Turkish Supreme Coordination Council for Human Rights, as a ‘reference working document’, even if practical measures to protect the rights of minorities need to be added, and the adoption of the law on adjourning trials and deferring sentences for press and radio broadcasting offences. But there are still many areas where progress is unsatisfactory, or indeed non-existent. I am thinking in this case of the absence of a law abolishing the death penalty, the Cyprus question and the occupation by the Turkish army of one third of the island of Cyprus, and the problem of the rights of minorities, such as the Kurdish and Armenian minorities. In this connection, I supported an amendment aimed at inserting into the body of the report a reference to the genocide in Armenia, because it is important to acknowledge this historical reality. I invite the Turkish authorities to do the same: this would mark a great step forward in the country’s progress towards democracy. If Turkey wants to enter into accession negotiations, it still needs to make a great deal of effort. If it wants to accede to the European Union, it will have to integrate all the values which make Europe what it is. This once again raises the question of whether Turkey really wants to be a Member of the European Union, or whether it would prefer to organise an integrated ‘whole’ with other Middle East countries, which would have very close links with the European Union at the commercial and economic level, at the security and stability level and also at the human rights and democratic rules level. This is, of course, a different debate to the one we are having today. But, given the importance I attach to Turkey, I wanted to restate my case today.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to congratulate the Commission and Mrs Martens on her report, although I must admit that, like a pupil at night school, all I can think about is going home to bed. This is a detailed and, I think, exemplary programme of work because it systematically links the objectives, the indicators and the timetable, thereby giving us a benchmark. But what we have to ask ourselves is, what sort of benchmark is it if, when it comes to the crunch, we shy away from a real policy of educational convergence at European level. We ignore the main differences, we are not willing or perhaps able to do anything about them or our priorities lie elsewhere and we use the Bologna method to set targets which every Member State has yet to meet. I have my doubts, which I have already voiced to Mrs Reding. Nonetheless, I think that it is a benchmark and we shall see in a few years' time how hard it is for some and how close others have come to it. But I think dialogue is indispensable, and not just at the level of Parliament. We need to find a way of formulating an opinion and a view before we are presented with faits accomplis. We need dialogue at school unit level. Teachers are strongly resisting indicators, at least in Greece. Most indicators are quantitative, only a few are qualitative, meaning that the picture we get will not always be the most accurate, and we do need the most accurate picture. I also share Mrs Martens' view that we need more indicators on education systems, not just training systems. And here the Commission proposal really is one-sided. I know we are all worried about unemployment, I know that we want to leave school with prospects of getting a job rather than joining the dole queue, but a general education for young children is equally valuable.

Political group: PSE
The Commission proposes that the European Investment Bank’s mandate to grant external loans, guaranteed by the Community budget should be revised, so as to take account of the New Neighbourhood policy in the context of an enlarged Europe, which is included in its proposals for a political and financial framework for 2007-2013. If we consider the ceiling for loans, which stands at EUR 20.260 million, we will rapidly conclude that the report accompanying this legislative proposal adds little to the underlying geopolitical considerations and objectives, particularly that of creating a pan-European-Mediterranean free trade area, in which the European Union can exert political, economic and military influence at regional level. The neighbourhood policy includes Russia as a matter of priority, for which the rapporteur proposes an increase of EUR 500 million in the provisional share-out, and the countries of the Mediterranean basin. These loans would clearly serve a policy of influence, self-interest and regional interference on the part of the European Union. This is an objective that we reject. More worrying still, however, is the fact that this policy of good neighbourliness has appeared at the expense of the EU’s cooperation and development policy, particularly with the ACP countries, Latin America and Asia.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I completely agree with what Mr Atkins is saying, but I have noticed to my amazement that, although I, along with 31 other members, tabled Amendment No 62, and although I phoned up the services three times to say that that was my amendment, it is still listed under Mr Robert Atkins. I find this very odd, for I think this does have a bearing on the discussion in some way or other. I do not think that that is right. It is clearly an amendment tabled by myself, along with 31 members, and I therefore want it to carry my name. If I phone up on several occasions regarding this matter, then surely it should be possible to have this rectified. No disrespect, but this is not how things should be done, in my opinion.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my speech concerns a matter of procedure. My view is that from the point of view of the working of the Members of Parliament it is very unsatisfactory that reports are continuously moved to entirely different time slots on the agenda. Mrs Peijs’s report was originally due to be considered at the afternoon session, then we were informed that it has been moved to the session starting at 9 p.m., after that a notification suddenly appeared here at 5.15 p.m. that in actual fact its processing is starting now. This kind of tossing the ball back and forth is not acceptable with regard to getting the Members’ time schedules organised. Another matter I would like to draw attention to is the absence of the Council. The Council question time is starting now. Surely they would have been able to arrive half an hour earlier to discuss, for example, this matter which is very important to the shipbuilding industry. The Council, however, is again conspicuous by being absent. I deeply regret that this is happening.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we at the European Parliament must respect the principles of the rule of law, which means that we must uphold judgments of our European Court of Justice. As we know, with regard to tobacco advertising, this court of law has previously nullified a directive on account of there being an incorrect legal basis. That does not surprise me, because during the debate of this first directive, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, under my chairmanship at the time, had clearly stated that the European Union had no powers to issue a directive of this kind. In short, the law has rights too. I should therefore like to thank Mr Medina Ortega warmly on his achievements as rapporteur on this occasion. I should like to stress straight away that I shall be backing him during the vote. After all, the rapporteur has ensured that the directive to be issued now is legally watertight. It is true that the European Union can impose a ban on tobacco advertising on the Member States if there is a clear cross-border effect. However, I should like to add that it seems to me to be necessary that the ban on tobacco advertising, if it has a cross-border effect, should be put on an equal footing across all Member States. Member States that take their own initiatives at present distort the internal market's organisation and often cause a competitive disadvantage for themselves. I would take the example of my own country, Belgium, and the sponsoring of major sports events in Belgium. Our country has already issued a law which bans any form of tobacco advertising from 2003 onwards. As you can see, this goes much further than the currently proposed European regulation. Is this wise? I think that a general European regulation, as proposed by our rapporteur, should, on account of its general application, ensure that unilateral measures with often unfortunate consequences are avoided in future.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has played a decisive role in condemning and in attempting to resolve the problem of pay inequalities between men and women that exist in our fifteen countries. Both the Treaties and now national laws uphold the principle of equal pay for men and women. No country, however, complies with its own laws in this field. The differences vary from country to country, but the outcome is the same. When employment in a given sector is dominated by women, the outcome is lower pay. It is the jobs mainly held by women that society accepts should be the least well paid. Even in Scandinavian countries, where women have achieved equality, even in political life, it is proving difficult for them to enter decision-making positions in privately owned companies, where salaries are higher. We therefore have a situation that is out of kilter, in that the laws impose equality but society continues to accept a model that fails to value work undertaken by women. In order to ensure that real democracy is practised and that a new social model that accepts equality is created, we need to give men greater rights in the field of their private lives. The laws that have been adopted and the proposals in this area are quite telling. In Portugal, for example, the government recently presented Parliament with a proposal for a law making parental leave mandatory for a period of at least five days. No European country currently has such a law. This type of leave is granted at the employer’s discretion and the aim of this law is to attempt to change people’s way of thinking. The fact that society continues to accept men’s abdication of duties in their home lives constitutes a genuine form of unfair competition to which women are subjected in their professional lives. If we want to change the situation of disadvantage that women continue to experience in the workplace, we need to change people's attitudes and the practices of the social partners. And here, the European Union must continue to play a key role. At the Lisbon Summit, Europe acknowledged that only by increasing the rate of employment for women will it be able to achieve, within ten years, the economic and social development that it wants to see. Europe must now acknowledge that it needs not only more working women but also the jobs that women do. To this end, the Commission proposed and the Council accepted equal pay as one of the priorities for 2001 in its programme for equality. The European Trade Union Confederation has also decided to make this issue its priority for this year. In drafting this own-initiative report, the European Parliament... (The President cut the speaker off) ... I only wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Smet and say that I agree with her proposals.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am going to ask three questions on behalf of my Socialist colleagues in the Committee on Development and Cooperation, who are here in spirit but physically are in the Committee itself, voting on the amendments relating to the World Trade Organisation. Firstly: can it be deduced from the Commission’s arguments here today that the funding of ECHO for humanitarian aid will mainly continue to be channelled through the programmes of different NGOs, or is any change envisaged in this regard? Secondly: does the Commission intend to support the reform of the regulations which govern humanitarian aid? And, if that is the case, in what respect? Would such a reform be carried out in accordance with the codecision principle which is introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam? Thirdly: can it be deduced from today’s discussion that ECHO will retain its full role of channelling European Union humanitarian aid in crisis situations, or, rather, that the activity of ECHO and humanitarian aid itself will be progressively diluted within the Union’s general policy of cooperation for development?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, can I congratulate Mr Daul on his report and first of all say that I will be supporting it tomorrow. I will be supporting my electorate, who are large sugar producers, and I will not be supporting the multinationals who are lobbying very hard. I would just say to you Commissioner that I worked on the 77 Protocol which was very much involved with helping the developing world countries. I heard Mrs Gill talking about the way in which the consumer was going to benefit. Let me make it absolutely plain to all of you here today, that the consumer will not benefit from a reduction in the price paid to British and European farmers for sugar. They certainly do not in the rest of the world where sugar is much cheaper. Why is it that I am being lobbied by the biggest single user of sugar in the world, a US company, specifically to get the price down? I heard Commissioner Lamy speaking before about trade relations with the US. Will the United States be reducing the price that they pay their farmers for their sugar as we are going to do, or are they going to continue with their very high support? Mr Daul, you said that the sugar regime was a special agreement. I would argue a little bit with you on that because I believe it is unique. First of all, the tax-payer does not pay for it. Secondly, it benefits farmers directly, unlike many parts of the present CAP, and thirdly, the sugar protocol itself helps some of the poorest countries in the world. It is very important that we continue to support those countries. I worked very hard to get them support and I intend to keep that support for those ACP countries. We have a saying, Commissioner, in the UK, if it is not broke, don't mend it. Please do not try to mend this system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Baker has made a number of modifications to the initial peace plan. I feel it is important for the Council not to view this as set in stone. Rather, it should endeavour to ensure that the plan evolves in line with United Nations resolutions providing for the population to vote in a referendum on self-determination for Western Sahara. I would like to reiterate the question I posed. I asked whether the conflict in Western Sahara is now officially on the Council’s foreign policy agenda. If so, how high is it on the agenda? Is the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy taking any action in this regard? Is the Presidency of the Council? Does the Council know whether the Commission is taking any such action? Is the Council aware that the Kingdom of Morocco prevented a delegation that was to have testified on the violation of human rights in Western Sahara from attending a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva? If so, what is the Council’s reaction?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the long term, our views are not so very different. As far as we can tell from the Commissioner's future plans as they stand now, she wants the same thing we all want and need, i.e. specially sensitive transport rules for specially sensitive areas. That was precisely the intention of the original Transit Agreement between the Community as it was then and Austria, standing as it did on the brink of accession in every sense of the word. And the solutions worked out just under ten years ago and the compromises brokered for Alpine transit at the time have, on the whole, worked. The ecopoint system has brought about a net improvement in the environmentally problematic nitrogen oxide situation, despite all its weaknesses, and the quantitative upper ceiling and 108% rule, which is what this is all about, has at least gone some way towards acting as a safety net, as hoped, despite a whole series of problems. So why now and why, given the current situation, terminate a fundamental element of the arrangement prematurely for such as short period of time? This is the question people in Austria are asking and they are not getting an answer. Unless the idea is to end transit traffic restrictions, including – more to the point – in sensitive Alpine regions. I think we shall all be doing future European transport policy a disservice if we jeopardise the common, long-term objective or completely lose sight of it for the sake of a few relatively minor inconsistencies and squabbles. That is why I think the position adopted two months ago by an admittedly narrow majority in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism is the right one. This committee position could be used as a springboard for renewed efforts to find jointly acceptable solutions, rather than creating huge emotional and political problems for Austria and its citizens. Austria versus the rest of the world? That cannot and should not be. We should all being pulling together to find good, forward-looking solutions to European transport problems. That should be our objective and I trust that we shall return a vote tomorrow which guarantees that.

Political group: PPE-DE
However much I admire the Commissioner for his agricultural policy, I do not think it right that there should be nobody from the Commission following these proceedings, given the huge importance of the debate on the automobile industry's future and the relevant social dimension. Although I am grateful to you for being here and congratulate you on everything you do for agriculture, I have to say that, normally speaking, a Commissioner should be here for industrial policy and social policy who can reply to the questions.

Political group: PPE-DE