GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I met both Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat in the Middle East last summer. The situation was desperate then. There was a vicious circle of terrible violence but at the same time the recent knowledge that the ingredients for a solution had been on the table at Camp David and Taba. Since then the security situation has deteriorated catastrophically. Terrorist extremists have committed the most vile acts and deliberately incited the emotions, prejudices, ignorance and anxieties of vulnerable peoples, particularly among the Islamic communities, and aroused the deepest fears among the Israelis. We should remember the strategic vulnerability of Israel, a tiny country whose people have been subjected to the most terrible terrorist attacks, at once unpredictable and random while organised and planned in order to have the most cruel and devastating effect. I think of the Israeli mother who would not let her small children travel on the same school bus in case they should all be lost. I think of the parents of those teenagers and others murdered or maimed in countless terrorist suicide bomb attacks. There is no moral or political justification for such horrendous acts. But I hold no brief for Ariel Sharon. In fact I am baffled and dismayed by his approach. On the one hand he has called for the Palestine authority to bear down on the terrorists in its midst but on the other he has crippled those very agencies which have the capacity to take such action. He has wanted to change the attitude of the Arab peoples to Israel, but by his own actions has helped stimulate primeval hatred in yet another generation of Palestinians and fuelled the martyr culture. We must recognise the desperate plight of the Palestinian people, so many of them abandoned by their Arab brethren in refugee camps for generations, prey to extremists, so often lacking the quality of leadership at crucial moments that would help release them from their misery. These are the raw ingredients that we have to work with. At this stage the European Union should not be self-interested, trying to promote some role for itself, but balanced, positive and constructive. It would certainly not be helpful for the EU to take one side in this matter by some policy of sanctions against Israel, for example. This would merely give comfort to extremists and sharpen the differences with the United States. What is needed now is a bold, generous, urgent international initiative with the European countries, the United States, Russia and well-meaning Arab states, speaking with one voice. We need to come together with a clear offer of massive international assistance. There are other darker forces waiting in the wings of this conflict. Time is running out.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too wish to congratulate Mr Markov on drafting a successful report, and thank him for it. Our Group is in favour of adopting it. The report has quite rightly stressed the importance of including the participation as well as the cooperation of regional and local players. Innovative measures can also help us to strengthen special regional and local features. In my opinion, it is important to create conditions that are as equal as possible in the different areas by exploiting modern technology. Teleworking can also create new job opportunities in sparsely populated areas. For that reason, broadband networks, for example, should be established to cover the entire Union area as much as is feasible, including those regions in which the markets do not create networks. The basic idea behind innovative measures is the creation and utilisation of new operational models. To this end, we must develop monitoring and evaluation systems. We have to focus attention on exchanges of experience and compliance with best practice. Tourism is an important means of livelihood in many remote areas as well. Innovative measures would, for example, help to promote the cooperation of travel companies in marketing and reservation systems. As has been said here, innovative measures should not just play it safe: they must also involve trying out risky projects. The measures must also serve the interests of regional sustainable development. Regarding the budget, some serious words were said here in the previous speech: EUR 400 million is really just the minimum for financing, and we will have to utilise the additional financial possibilities offered by the flexibility instrument in the second half of the period, as the report states. I would also like to ask how the Commission intends to ensure that the money that was agreed at Berlin will be available for innovative measures, and how the money that has been lent to the URBAN initiative is to be returned during this period for use for innovative measures. Amendments Nos 5 and 7 are appropriate, as the Commission should not use appropriation reserves for unexpected projects, as was the case a few weeks ago.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, with the creation of the European Air Safety Agency, the European Union is proposing to achieve and maintain a high level of safety and environmental protection, which are of genuine importance to European society and also to European integration. We do, of course, support this idea. I should like, in any event, to say that safety and the protection of the environment are closely connected to the distribution of airports, which is suffering, in practical and serious ways, as a result of the trend to centralise airports that is prevailing in most European States and which is being promoted by central governments, which, for political reasons and reasons of power, are concentrating investment in capital cities, and by the so-called flagship companies, which, for the same reasons are centralising their flights and sending them into the same airports. Consequently, most of Europe, just like my own country, Galicia, is suffering considerable hardship through being deprived of decent lines of air communication, traffic is becoming concentrated to an extraordinary degree in the air corridors that link the capitals, and the communities that live near to these central airports suffer the consequences of the noise and the bottlenecks. All of this militates against the sustainable development that we must try to achieve from the points of view of both safety and economics and from the social and environmental angles. I would say that we are, therefore, facing a serious problem, which we must start to resolve.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, what the Group has actually requested is, since this is a very short report, if it could go before Mr Rothley’s report on vehicle insurance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if we send this back to the committee, I cannot promise in which form it will come back. We could start a major constitutional crisis with the Council. We have just got an answer from the Council on the common foreign and security policy. We should acknowledge that as a major shift from the Council, which is why I am urging you to vote today in favour of the line that I have proposed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I do not wish to begin my speech without expressing my gratitude, in my capacity as a Spaniard and as chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, for the European Council’s support for this Parliament's proposal that 11 March should be the European day for commemorating the victims of terrorism. Recent events, as well as causing us dismay and anguish, have made us aware – as we in my country have unfortunately been for a long time – that the civilised world is at risk, in danger, from a new enemy whose limits cannot be defined: terrorism. And combating this enemy, which has many tentacles and which kills in a merciless and brutal manner, does not involve a normal war, it is not a traditional war, but it is – and there is not the least doubt of this – an unequal and criminal war against societies built upon principles such as freedom and democracy. The European Union must unite in its efforts and urgently implement all the legal, financial and human instruments needed to combat terrorism. For all these reasons, I believe this Parliament is obliged to send the European Council a message of support for the measures it adopted on 25 March, contained in its Statement against Terrorism, but also, with the legitimacy we have as representatives of the European citizens, to tell it that we cannot accept the lack of political will on the part of the Member States to implement these measures for a minute longer, as is currently the case – and I would stress just a couple of the most obvious examples, such as the European arrest warrant or the framework decision on terrorism. And it is even less acceptable that, for purely budgetary or procedural reasons, the most effective instruments in the fight against terrorism, such as the Anti-Terrorist Unit, created within Europol as a result of the 11 September attacks, should be dismantled. Furthermore, ladies and gentlemen, reality demonstrates that the European Union is often faced with significant difficulties when it comes to adopting decisions, and with 25 Member States I fear that this will mean that de facto many decisions will be deadlocked. So why do we not – following the example of the last European Council, which used the solidarity clause, laid down in the still draft constitutional treaty – anticipate the implementation of the system for adopting decisions by qualified majority, already included in the text of our future constitution? Ladies and gentlemen, I believe – and I will end here – that this would make our work to combat what has shown itself to be the greatest danger currently facing the stability of democratic societies based on the rule of law much easier. Our citizens deserve no less, ladies and gentlemen.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the Committee on Budgets for their excellent cooperation. A number of points have been taken on board. We advocate making radical changes to Budget 2001, firstly by basing the various categories and types of expenditure on modern DAC 1 and DAC 2 categories. This may be double Dutch to some people, but in practice it would enable us to see which poverty eradication categories the money is spent on, and also to give an account of the situation in these terms at a later date. As matters stand, it is impossible to say how much of the money earmarked for poverty eradication is spent on primary education. We must not carry on this way. We want to see more money in this category being spent on primary education and primary health care, and more on the least developed countries, not by increasing the overall amount, but by apportioning it differently, so that the poverty focus is taken seriously. Thirdly, we want the EDF expenditure outside Parliament’s budget to be integrated, not because we have something to say about this – although we would very much like to – but at the very least, so that people can see the important uses to which the overall expenditure is being put in our efforts to eradicate poverty. Otherwise, it would not be worthwhile producing yet another annual report on this expenditure. Lastly, our opinion makes it clear that we want to group the various budget lines together under various headings, so as to afford a better and more coherent overview of this budget, rather than having dozens of budget lines, which makes the budget opaque to anyone who cares to study it. We want transparency. And fortunately we are very much of the same mind as the Committee on Budgets on that score. It is not so much about providing more money, as spending what we have more effectively, and creating greater accountability.

Political group: PSE
It is clear that there is a great fear among many people, particularly the people who elected me, that this Charter will override national constitutions, in particular as regards the support and protection of fundamental institutions such as family, marriage and the protection of life, born and unborn. It is good to remember that Europe has shared a common position throughout its history regarding the importance of supporting and protecting family and marriage. This is enshrined in all our constitutions as well as the constitutions of those accession countries joining the European Union in enlargement. I can show you the constitutions of post-communist states in which the family and marriage is protected. I welcome the reference in our Charter to family life. Part 1 of Article 9 states: 'Everyone shall have the right to found a family'. It says it is inspired by Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states 'men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family according to national laws'. Society recognises marriage not on moral grounds but because it recognises on a rational basis the stability it affords society socially and economically as well as securing future generations. In the interests of best practice – and whilst it is increasingly difficult to define family and we need great sensitivity and compassion in this area – we should not throw away the traditional family unit as the fundamental unit we strive towards, indeed we should uphold it. Point 3 of Article 9 states, 'the Union shall ensure the protection of children'. It suggests we could add 'in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child'. I support this, but I would strongly suggest that we incorporate into the wording of point 3 that first and foremost, the Union will support the family as the primary and natural educator and protector of the child as is their duty. The Union should only step into a primary role where the family is unable to fulfil its duty. As it states in the Convention, 'the family as the fundamental group of society and natural environment for the growth and wellbeing of its members, particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance to fully assume its responsibility within the Community'.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, these are indeed challenging times for the European Union’s textile and clothing industry. In that context, I am delighted to welcome the Commission’s communication on this matter. The region I represent, the East Midlands, has the largest cluster of clothing companies in the United Kingdom and has the second largest clothing and textile industry in Europe. Many of my constituents working in this industry have been made redundant time after time and they see manufacturing moving to the low-wage economies of developing countries. It is understandable that to these workers, who are still in such vulnerable positions, protectionist measures seem an attractive proposition. However, in the long term this is not the way to deal with the problems facing the industry today. In today’s global economy the EU is never going to be able to compete on price alone and nor should it. The EU should maximise the advantages of well-trained workers who are motivated, skilled and experienced. We have succeeded in this industry in the past and we can continue to do so in the future. There are different, innovative ways to face the challenges of increasing global competition. For some businesses EU funding has proved to be an important tool in boosting competitiveness. The East Midlands Textile Association runs numerous projects – funded through the European Regional Development Fund – which assist companies: projects such as MAS, which helps small businesses in the region to branch out into new markets, or the Business ICT Bureau, which provides an expert source of ICT help specific to the needs of the textile sector. These are good examples of how funding is being used to help establish networks between local organisations working in the same area. While funding programmes are beneficial, they are also short-term in nature. I know that work is being done to ensure that maximum long-term economic benefit will be gained by harnessing the East Midlands textile cluster. For other businesses the answer may be to look towards technical textiles, ranging from specialist heat- and chemical-resistant materials to flight socks designed to reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis. I should like to raise a note of caution here. For some companies the correct response to the challenges is to look to the high-tech field, but it is not an option available to everyone. It would be easy to say that companies are resistant to change. If you look at small organisations with just a few employees and tight profit margins it is much more difficult for those companies to make the significant investment in research that will come more easily to the bigger players. My final point is that the head office of the trade union, KFAT, is in Leicester, my home town. That union has informed the debate about the future of the textile industry. I, like the industry, the trade unions and those who work in it, look forward to the implementation of the Commission’s proposals.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Madam President-in-Office of the Council. Your reply was really very interesting. I was a member of the delegation referred to by Miguel Ángel Martínez and I was able to witness the fact that NGOs, Ambassadors and even the so-called dissidents in Cuba consider the common position to be of little use. I wanted to point out, Madam President, that if there are many Members here who feel the common position relating to Cuba is unjust, it is because, for example, we have a customs agreement with Turkey and we all know that Turkey does not comply with basic human rights. In fact, the Kurdish Member of Parliament, Leyla Zana, who was awarded the Sakharov Prize, is in prison, and a European delegation has not been able to visit her over recent days. We also have very special agreements with Morocco, another country which does not comply with human rights. What we are saying is that the common position relating to Cuba demands that the latter make changes before we reach a cooperation agreement and that is what seems unfair to us, Madam President-in-Office of the Council. We therefore always insist that this review – which is going to be at the last minute – should take account of the opinions of all these people in Cuba, and we also note that two different yardsticks are being used.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to thank the Commissioner for the responses we have received so far. As you are no doubt aware, Sweden has put many years’ work and a great deal of money into trying to eradicate salmonella. The fact is that this work is now under threat as we are importing salmonella from other EU countries under the current system. As the Commissioner has quite rightly pointed out, there are rules for the meat preparations in question. The problem is that these rules are clearly not being followed, with as much as one third of the products checked actually carrying salmonella. In this case, is it not reasonable to request that, as long as the EU is not managing to ensure that the rules are followed, Sweden should be allowed to apply the same type of salmonella control to meat preparations as is applied to many other types of product in order to prevent the spread of this infection?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no excuse for any terrorist act. Terrorism is, above all, contempt for life, contempt for the life of innocent citizens, sometimes even contempt for one’s own life. If all citizens have a duty to stand in the way of terrorism, it is not sufficient merely to arrest and pass judgment on the perpetrators and organisers of terrorist acts. More than anything, we need to improve the conditions which give rise to terrorism: poverty, underdevelopment and ignorance are fertile ground for all kinds of fundamentalism. It is a paradox that any unforeseeable event can easily be explained after it has happened, but it is not sufficient just to explain the world, we have to change it. The world economy is in bad shape. After the attack on the United States, it risks getting even worse, particularly if there is prolonged military action. Europe, in order to be able to help others, should tackle its own economic problems. We should welcome the cut in interest rates, and it is also true that the ECB could have better prepared the markets. These measures would have prevented many stock market crashes. If there is no balanced growth in the long term, no stabilisation of public deficit, such a shock from the exterior that is unforeseen and unforeseeable should lead Europe to bring automatic stabilisers into play for all EU countries. This is not economic laxity but good economic sense. This good economic sense is demonstrated to us by our American friends. They have just decided on a substantial aid package for their civil aviation. Does this mean that Europe will now complain to the WTO about this distortion of competition? Or will she also establish a policy to support those economic sectors weakened by this terrible shock? Luckily, we have the euro. Without the common currency there would have been turmoil on international money markets, pushing certain currencies such as the Deutschmark to the top and others seen as weaker to the bottom, with the breakdown of the internal market into the bargain. There is not only Europe, however. There are poor countries that have a greater risk of suffering from any economic turnaround in a recession that is still a possibility. Our main priority should be to aim for the true integration of all countries into world trade. Globalisation, often discredited, only in fact affects a severely limited number of countries. Four fifths of world trade takes place between thirty or so countries. There will be no development without trade. Any economy, in order to be able to export, should create endogenous growth, itself creating greater equity within a country. In order to permit this endogenous development in poor countries, the problem of third world debt needs to be resolved as soon as possible. It is only by eradicating poverty and ignorance that we will definitively defeat terrorism.

Political group: PSE